this football director bloke

[blahblahblah 2]

The job description sounds very much like the "head of player development" job I think we had under Worthington and grant ? When did Norwich stop having one of those, and why ?

[norwichyellow 0]

In answer to why:- cost.

But I don''t understand this quote from Neil"Things like the nutrition and hydration, their rest and well-being, and the running of the training ground, things like that."

Don''t they already have people for that. That is not what a director of football does.

[pablofarmer 0]

I can only assume that they mean in a coordination role, which again I can only assume was part of the managers role.

Which if it was, is stupid!

[BSEYELLOW 36]

Norwich Yellow, it is not a Director of football that they are looking to bring in, McNally made a point of saying that it will be a ''Technical Director''. Which will basically be handling all of the important aspects of the day to day running of the players that are not directly tactics/signing of players/technical training. Or thats how i understood it.

A typical director of football is in charge of recruitment, our Technical director will not be involved in this, which is the biggest difference.

Basically it will leave Neil to coach the players, work on tactics and discuss transfers, he wont have to look at anything else unless he feels something is wrong.

Good move in my opinion.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="BSEYELLOW"]Norwich Yellow, it is not a Director of football that they are looking to bring in, McNally made a point of saying that it will be a ''Technical Director''. Which will basically be handling all of the important aspects of the day to day running of the players that are not directly tactics/signing of players/technical training. Or thats how i understood it. A typical director of football is in charge of recruitment, our Technical director will not be involved in this, which is the biggest difference. Basically it will leave Neil to coach the players, work on tactics and discuss transfers, he wont have to look at anything else unless he feels something is wrong. Good move in my opinion.[/quote]

 

The Technical Director will have input of signings, the current system (like most clubs) has a panel of the manager, CEO and chief scout. The Technical Director will also sit on this panel when transfers are discussed.

 

Basically, the TD is someone who is more loyal to the board than the manager, he will take a lot of the managers work load so he can concentrate on match preperation and tactics, but also provide critical oversight. Under Hughton, for example, there was no one with football expertise in the club above CH - this meant they would usually default to the manager''s wishes, which as we all know wasn''t the best tactic. This system works very well when the manager is doing well, but it can be hard to turn things around when things start to go wrong.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="BSEYELLOW"]Norwich Yellow, it is not a Director of football that they are looking to bring in, McNally made a point of saying that it will be a ''Technical Director''. Which will basically be handling all of the important aspects of the day to day running of the players that are not directly tactics/signing of players/technical training. Or thats how i understood it. A typical director of football is in charge of recruitment, our Technical director will not be involved in this, which is the biggest difference. Basically it will leave Neil to coach the players, work on tactics and discuss transfers, he wont have to look at anything else unless he feels something is wrong. Good move in my opinion.[/quote]

 

The Technical Director will have input of signings, the current system (like most clubs) has a panel of the manager, CEO and chief scout. The Technical Director will also sit on this panel when transfers are discussed.

 

Basically, the TD is someone who is more loyal to the board than the manager, he will take a lot of the managers work load so he can concentrate on match preperation and tactics, but also provide critical oversight. Under Hughton, for example, there was no one with football expertise in the club above CH - this meant they would usually default to the manager''s wishes, which as we all know wasn''t the best tactic. This system works very well when the manager is doing well, but it can be hard to turn things around when things start to go wrong.

[/quote]Bethnal, if that is the case, and I don''t see how it makes sense otherwise, then the technical director will have to be someone with enough of a serious track record in football to be able to overrule or at least seriously question the manager. A senior figure perhaps too old for the day to day nonsense. But the latest job description from McNally rules that out and makes his idea of a TD sound like a glorified dogsbody:“We want him [Adams} to be concerned with the first-team coaching, the final say

on players in and players out. But the technical director will look

after those other important areas like conditioning, fitness, medical,

physio, sports science, sports analysis, academy, the infrastructure,

the training ground, players’ rest, relaxation, wellbeing, nutrition,

hydration – the list goes on."

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

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

[quote user="BSEYELLOW"]Norwich Yellow, it is not a Director of football that they are looking to bring in, McNally made a point of saying that it will be a ''Technical Director''. Which will basically be handling all of the important aspects of the day to day running of the players that are not directly tactics/signing of players/technical training. Or thats how i understood it. A typical director of football is in charge of recruitment, our Technical director will not be involved in this, which is the biggest difference. Basically it will leave Neil to coach the players, work on tactics and discuss transfers, he wont have to look at anything else unless he feels something is wrong. Good move in my opinion.[/quote]

 

The Technical Director will have input of signings, the current system (like most clubs) has a panel of the manager, CEO and chief scout. The Technical Director will also sit on this panel when transfers are discussed.

 

Basically, the TD is someone who is more loyal to the board than the manager, he will take a lot of the managers work load so he can concentrate on match preperation and tactics, but also provide critical oversight. Under Hughton, for example, there was no one with football expertise in the club above CH - this meant they would usually default to the manager''s wishes, which as we all know wasn''t the best tactic. This system works very well when the manager is doing well, but it can be hard to turn things around when things start to go wrong.

[/quote]

Bethnal, if that is the case, and I don''t see how it makes sense otherwise, then the technical director will have to be someone with enough of a serious track record in football to be able to overrule or at least seriously question the manager. A senior figure perhaps too old for the day to day nonsense. But the latest job description from McNally rules that out and makes his idea of a TD sound like a glorified dogsbody:

“We want him [Adams} to be concerned with the first-team coaching, the final say on players in and players out. But the technical director will look after those other important areas like conditioning, fitness, medical, physio, sports science, sports analysis, academy, the infrastructure, the training ground, players’ rest, relaxation, wellbeing, nutrition, hydration – the list goes on."


[/quote]

 

Don''t pay too much hedance to McNally''s quotes on the subject, most clubs play down the importance of their TDs to avoid fan pressure or other clubs trying to poach them.

 

McNally also said something about being ''at the mercy'' of the manager in the interview given after the Arsenal game, since then he has been toning down his language and avoiding the dreaded ''Director of Football'' title, but I feel this was a telling line. Even if it is someone like Ricky Martin getting the role, they will be providing their professional opinion directly to the board on the manager''s performance - whilst McNally has been in football a long time, he is still basically a marketing man and that is his real skill, he knows he doesn''t have the expertise on many other aspects of the game.

[GPs Beard 0]

I believe that what the Club needs , to support Adams and avoid the issues that the board have raised as prior problems , is a Director of Football.

 

The kind of role that a few people recognise from European clubs , that gives a supporting role to the manager , but also offers a critique on aspects of the footballing side of the Club. I say this because that is what Bowkett said. In short , we allowed CH too much rope and it won''t happen again.

 

The role is now Technical Director. Some on here has described this as a dogsbody, others have said that it exists already. What is also being said is that it has nothing to do with football , but still apparently one with a voice on a footballing committee? Neil must be allowed to run the football side of things unhindered. But that is exactly what they have criticised the previous bloke for doing, and saying it wont happen again? Do we honestly think that NA filled up the water bottles and made the lunch? Kept up to speed with the latest physio technology ?

 

It all sounds to me like making the job spec fit the candidate. If we really want to get someone to keep an eye, have contacts across Europe, some gravitas and some real footballing experience at the highest level, then why not say so and go and get them?

[blahblahblah 2]

In saying that they are casting the net far and wide - they can''t then appoint Martin - surely ? That would e twice they they had scoured europe to find the best person for the job already in Norwich.

Which leads me to the question - which former manager would want to do this. Someone retiring from mangement possibly ? But the job spec suggests something more hands on than that.

It''s a proper enigma wrapped up in a riddle and no mistake.

Culverhouse ? Or is he out of contention as a result of what happened at Villa ?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

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

[quote user="BSEYELLOW"]Norwich Yellow, it is not a Director of football that they are looking to bring in, McNally made a point of saying that it will be a ''Technical Director''. Which will basically be handling all of the important aspects of the day to day running of the players that are not directly tactics/signing of players/technical training. Or thats how i understood it. A typical director of football is in charge of recruitment, our Technical director will not be involved in this, which is the biggest difference. Basically it will leave Neil to coach the players, work on tactics and discuss transfers, he wont have to look at anything else unless he feels something is wrong. Good move in my opinion.[/quote]

 

The Technical Director will have input of signings, the current system (like most clubs) has a panel of the manager, CEO and chief scout. The Technical Director will also sit on this panel when transfers are discussed.

 

Basically, the TD is someone who is more loyal to the board than the manager, he will take a lot of the managers work load so he can concentrate on match preperation and tactics, but also provide critical oversight. Under Hughton, for example, there was no one with football expertise in the club above CH - this meant they would usually default to the manager''s wishes, which as we all know wasn''t the best tactic. This system works very well when the manager is doing well, but it can be hard to turn things around when things start to go wrong.

[/quote]Bethnal, if that is the case, and I don''t see how it makes sense otherwise, then the technical director will have to be someone with enough of a serious track record in football to be able to overrule or at least seriously question the manager. A senior figure perhaps too old for the day to day nonsense. But the latest job description from McNally rules that out and makes his idea of a TD sound like a glorified dogsbody:“We want him [Adams} to be concerned with the first-team coaching, the final say on players in and players out. But the technical director will look after those other important areas like conditioning, fitness, medical, physio, sports science, sports analysis, academy, the infrastructure, the training ground, players’ rest, relaxation, wellbeing, nutrition, hydration – the list goes on."

[/quote]

 

Don''t pay too much hedance to McNally''s quotes on the subject, most clubs play down the importance of their TDs to avoid fan pressure or other clubs trying to poach them.

 

McNally also said something about being ''at the mercy'' of the manager in the interview given after the Arsenal game, since then he has been toning down his language and avoiding the dreaded ''Director of Football'' title, but I feel this was a telling line. Even if it is someone like Ricky Martin getting the role, they will be providing their professional opinion directly to the board on the manager''s performance - whilst McNally has been in football a long time, he is still basically a marketing man and that is his real skill, he knows he doesn''t have the expertise on many other aspects of the game.

[/quote]Bethnal, I am normally OK at working our how to "read" statements, reading between the lines and  noticing what is not said!  But there still seems to be a serious disconnect here, as GPB''s post indicates. It is hard to see how the same person can at the same time be effectively junior/at a tangent to Adams, doing the stuff he should not be bothering with, and senior to him, as part of this overseeing technical committee.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

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

[quote user="BSEYELLOW"]Norwich Yellow, it is not a Director of football that they are looking to bring in, McNally made a point of saying that it will be a ''Technical Director''. Which will basically be handling all of the important aspects of the day to day running of the players that are not directly tactics/signing of players/technical training. Or thats how i understood it. A typical director of football is in charge of recruitment, our Technical director will not be involved in this, which is the biggest difference. Basically it will leave Neil to coach the players, work on tactics and discuss transfers, he wont have to look at anything else unless he feels something is wrong. Good move in my opinion.[/quote]

 

The Technical Director will have input of signings, the current system (like most clubs) has a panel of the manager, CEO and chief scout. The Technical Director will also sit on this panel when transfers are discussed.

 

Basically, the TD is someone who is more loyal to the board than the manager, he will take a lot of the managers work load so he can concentrate on match preperation and tactics, but also provide critical oversight. Under Hughton, for example, there was no one with football expertise in the club above CH - this meant they would usually default to the manager''s wishes, which as we all know wasn''t the best tactic. This system works very well when the manager is doing well, but it can be hard to turn things around when things start to go wrong.

[/quote]

Bethnal, if that is the case, and I don''t see how it makes sense otherwise, then the technical director will have to be someone with enough of a serious track record in football to be able to overrule or at least seriously question the manager. A senior figure perhaps too old for the day to day nonsense. But the latest job description from McNally rules that out and makes his idea of a TD sound like a glorified dogsbody:

“We want him [Adams} to be concerned with the first-team coaching, the final say on players in and players out. But the technical director will look after those other important areas like conditioning, fitness, medical, physio, sports science, sports analysis, academy, the infrastructure, the training ground, players’ rest, relaxation, wellbeing, nutrition, hydration – the list goes on."


[/quote]

 

Don''t pay too much hedance to McNally''s quotes on the subject, most clubs play down the importance of their TDs to avoid fan pressure or other clubs trying to poach them.

 

McNally also said something about being ''at the mercy'' of the manager in the interview given after the Arsenal game, since then he has been toning down his language and avoiding the dreaded ''Director of Football'' title, but I feel this was a telling line. Even if it is someone like Ricky Martin getting the role, they will be providing their professional opinion directly to the board on the manager''s performance - whilst McNally has been in football a long time, he is still basically a marketing man and that is his real skill, he knows he doesn''t have the expertise on many other aspects of the game.

[/quote]

Bethnal, I am normally OK at working our how to "read" statements, reading between the lines and  noticing what is not said!  But there still seems to be a serious disconnect here, as GPB''s post indicates. It is hard to see how the same person can at the same time be effectively junior/at a tangent to Adams, doing the stuff he should not be bothering with, and senior to him, as part of this overseeing technical committee.
[/quote]

 

I don''t think there is any suggestion the TD will be junior to Adams, the ''technical'' parts of the job are not stuff Adams should not be bothered doing, but are the critical areas for the development of players. Adams will deal with all things short-term, he will be looking only a few weeks ahead in sorting out match preperation etc. The TD will be responsible for the long-term development of the club and players.

 

I think the best example to look at is Les Reed at Southampton, he isn''t a previously experienced manager come in to boss everyone around, but is there is a managerial role of the technical issues - and is also a member of the Southampton board and an executive director.

 

In effect it is taking a lot of power away from Adams, but the club don''t want to come out and say that. They want it to seem like just another backroom appointment working for/alongside the manager. McNally''s original statement seemed much stronger on this, but he then started saying something slightly more watered down. It may be the club has changed position, but I think it is more to draw focus from what can be something very unpopular with fans

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="blahblahblah"] That would e twice they they had scoured europe to find the best person for the job already in Norwich.

[/quote]

What is so surprising about this -  it''s what you would expect surely?

[# 0]

It''ll be Worthy.........I just know it![:''(]

[ZLF 271]

I would not be opposed to worthy but do think there is a need to have an non norwich input to footballing matters at the moment.

[Cheap Cheap Cheap Canaries 0]

The Sunday papers said we were after somebody from Celtic John Park i think his name was .

[Icecream Snow 761]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Bethnal, if that is the case, and I don''t see how it makes sense otherwise, then the technical director will have to be someone with enough of a serious track record in football to be able to overrule or at least seriously question the manager. A senior figure perhaps too old for the day to day nonsense. But the latest job description from McNally rules that out and makes his idea of a TD sound like a glorified dogsbody:“We want him [Adams} to be concerned with the first-team coaching, the final say

on players in and players out. But the technical director will look

after those other important areas like conditioning, fitness, medical,

physio, sports science, sports analysis, academy, the infrastructure,

the training ground, players’ rest, relaxation, wellbeing, nutrition,

hydration – the list goes on."

[/quote]I think it''s difficult to gauge. From some of the specific examples McNally gave, it sounded like Hughton was trying to do too much. I understood one as saying that Hughton had called him at 11pm on a Thursday night trying to sort a loan out for Cameron McGeehan to Luton, and McNally felt he should have been focusing on higher priorities.

[danielsroundabout 9]

The manager should have total authority on pure footballing matters (putting squad together, team selection, tactics etc.). If, as some have suggested on here, the new man has a role which in any way includes monitoring the managers performance and reporting to the board, then McNally really does need to move on.

I don''t think the perceived role does have seniority over the manager but some posters on here appear to see it that way. It is worrying that Neil Adams is so elated at having got the gig that he is not in a position to resist anything that the board might impose. He''ll just have to hope that the new appointment is simply in charge of energy drinks, menus, sexual activity timetables etc.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

I have to wonder whether it was being supervised that put off candidates ahead of Neil Adams.

It seems to be another pressure on the manager to have this individual reporting to the board about you; the other duties seem right to be taken off the manager''s shoulders.

I bet McNally is so confident in his new set up he felt able to trust an inexperienced manager within the system.