[Football] Redknapp speaks out against the "director of football" type role

[The Birdman]

It needs a good understanding between the Director of football and the manager / head coach with the latter making the final decision with the Chairman. Then it could work

 

[Triggaaar]

Redknapp, who has complete control of purchases at QPR, cannot see the sense in managers being forced to work with players that they have not chosen themselves.

So when a manager moves club, they should dump all their players and buy a new squad. Righto Harry.

 

[spanish flair]

So when a manager moves club, they should dump all their players and buy a new squad. Righto Harry.

Surely that is not what Butterball means is it? A new manager comes in because the previous manager and players failed. Now my issue is, although the previous manager in the eyes of the club failed, how much of the failure is down to the DOF, who identified the the poor players that let the club down. On top of this, does the new manager not have the right to get shot of some bad players and bring in some he feels will recover the situation. Surely he identifies the players he thinks will achieve whats needed ?

 

[Triggaaar]

Surely that is not what Butterball means is it?

What he means is he wants his chairman to give him whatever he wants. But what he said was that it doesn't make sense for managers to have to work with players they didn't choose. But of course they bloody have to, unless they're at the club for a long time. Imagine Chelsea's managers not working with the players that are at the club - the managers change every year, it wouldn't make sense to also change every player every year.

 

[spanish flair]

What he means is he wants his chairman to give him whatever he wants. But what he said was that it doesn't make sense for managers to have to work with players they didn't choose. But of course they bloody have to, unless they're at the club for a long time. Imagine Chelsea's managers not working with the players that are at the club - the managers change every year, it wouldn't make sense to also change every player every year.

I accept that, but you have not commented on the role of the DOF in a clubs failure and his responsibility for identifying a poor squad

 

[Diego Napier]

I see no reason why a director of football shouldn't work. There's loads more to the identifying and recruiting players, stuff that the manager doesn't have time for and shouldn't be involved with.

As long as he has the final say in whether a player is signed or not.

Like at the Albion.

This is the reality of football today. A manager has far too much to do to spot and assess players throughout Britain and Europe. I understand 'arry probably does if tales of his coaching techniques are to be believed (stands on the touchline and shouts shoot, tackle run etc.).

It's no different to any other large business; there's a team of recruitment specialists who create a shortlist of potential candidates and then the manager gets involved interviewing and making the final decision.

Hyypia has gone on record as saying he was surprised how hands on he is during the selection process, on the continent managers are simply presented with their new players. I don't see any of the German/Spanish/Italian teams collapsing in disorder as a result which is surprising as they don't have the benefit of the NSC Brains Trust to point out why their system is so wrong.

 

[Triggaaar]

I accept that, but you have not commented on the role of the DOF in a clubs failure and his responsibility for identifying a poor squad

No, I wasn't commenting on that, I was simply disagreeing with a point 'arry made.

If a club fails because of the players that they've recruited (assuming there was enough money to recruit decent players), then the blame lies with the person/team that recruited them. But it's never that simple. How the manager trains and plays those players has a huge effect on results, as does luck. And if the players aren't good enough and they lose a lot of games, those players will often blame the manager, so what's an owner to do? It's easier to change the manager than change every player. That's why there's such a manager merry-go-round. They're not all bad managers, but when it goes wrong they're the ones that have to go.

Getting back to us - what should TB do. Well he needs to determine if we have brought in the wrong players and if we have, whose to blame, and then he needs to fix the issue.

Personally, I like our model. What's the point in a club like us only having the manager choose the players when our managers don't stay for long. As long as the manager gets a say, I think we're doing it the right way.

 

[GT49er]

Depends what system you employ. It should work when the manager tells the Director of Football the type of player he wants. The DoF then communicates this to the scouts who find those that fit the bill and a list is drawn up based on what the club can afford. This is then presented to the manager who grades them in order of his preferred choices. The DoF then negotiates to bring in the managers preferred options.

So why waste money on a middle man? Manager briefs his chief scout, chief scout gets on with it and reports back. Job done. Sticking a D of F in the structure ABOVE the manger is rubbish - as we are proving now.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So why waste money on a middle man? Manager briefs his chief scout, chief scout gets on with it and reports back. Job done. Sticking a D of F in the structure ABOVE the manger is rubbish - as we are proving now.

So what are Swansea, Southampton, Chelsea, West Brom, Stoke all proving who also have similar systems?

The problem chairman have is manager briefs scouts, manager signs players he wants, manager has success, manager leaves. Next manager needs to start again. That is happening with us anyway, but with clubs like Southampton, they are changing managers, directors etc, but they are establishing continuity right through the club and sustaining success.

 

[Creaky]

So what are Swansea, Southampton, Chelsea, West Brom, Stoke all proving who also have similar systems?

The problem chairman have is manager briefs scouts, manager signs players he wants, manager has success, manager leaves. Next manager needs to start again. That is happening with us anyway, but with clubs like Southampton, they are changing managers, directors etc, but they are establishing continuity right through the club and sustaining success.

Nothing wrong with having a Chief Scout who works below the manager but provides continuity when a manager leaves.

 

[spring hall convert]

How many clubs has Redknapp ruined financially without a DoF overlooking?

Well on his way to another one right now. Of course he'll jump ship before the shit really hits the fan and leave some other poor ****er to clean up the mess.

 

[GT49er]

So what are Swansea, Southampton, Chelsea, West Brom, Stoke all proving who also have similar systems?

The problem chairman have is manager briefs scouts, manager signs players he wants, manager has success, manager leaves. Next manager needs to start again. That is happening with us anyway, but with clubs like Southampton, they are changing managers, directors etc, but they are establishing continuity right through the club and sustaining success.

......they are establishing continuity right through the club and sustaining success. We're not.

 

[spanish flair]

So what are Swansea, Southampton, Chelsea, West Brom, Stoke all proving who also have similar systems?

The problem chairman have is manager briefs scouts, manager signs players he wants, manager has success, manager leaves. Next manager needs to start again. That is happening with us anyway, but with clubs like Southampton, they are changing managers, directors etc, but they are establishing continuity right through the club and sustaining success.

Can I just ask. If a club is struggling and the squad looks poor to previous seasons, how much of the responsibility is attributed between the manager and the DOF. Is it 50-50 or what, if the team is failing why is the head of the manager only ever called for?

 

[Bladders]

Stopping Harry bankrupting a club is more the Chairman/Owner responsibility than a DOF don't you think?

You would think, but a lot of club owners have other business interests etc, its not like the old days when a local bloke owned the club.

The D of F usually has budgetary control these days when it comes to transfers. Gus had a budget, but even he over spent a bit, so he had that control taken away....... allegedly.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

......they are establishing continuity right through the club and sustaining success. We're not.

So it's not a flawed system then but some other underlying issue like personnel, budget constraints etc

 

[Bold Seagull]

Can I just ask. If a club is struggling and the squad looks poor to previous seasons, how much of the responsibility is attributed between the manager and the DOF. Is it 50-50 or what, if the team is failing why is the head of the manager only ever called for?

If only football were as simple as being able to apply a formula of blame. The chairman will know how the DoF has performed. He'll know the quality of list that is being researched for the club, and whether it's the club negotiations that fail to land quality targets, or whether those lists are just lacking in quality. He'll know whether the manager is happy with what is being put forward or not. Without knowing what's going on behind the scenes, we are really just guessing at who is actually responsible.

 

[GT49er]

So it's not a flawed system then but some other underlying issue like personnel, budget constraints etc

Like any other flawed system (3-5-2 for example) it will work for a while occasionally.

 

[edna krabappel]

I'd have thought old 'Arry would have loved to work under a director of football.

That way, when it all goes tits up, you've got a whole new man to lay the blame on. Obviously you still claim the credit for yourself when you win.

 

[spanish flair]

I'd have thought old 'Arry would have loved to work under a director of football.

That way, when it all goes tits up, you've got a whole new man to lay the blame on. Obviously you still claim the credit for yourself when you win.

Like a David Burke in reverse, yes I see where you are coming from.

 

[spanish flair]

Apart from the fact that we are having our best spell of sucsess since the 80s with the system. How the hell is that a failing system?

Well we were all the time Gus was leading the recruitment team by the hand, but now things are not so good when they have to do it on there own.