You don't think that happens?

otfgoon wrote:

Meatwad wrote:

i honestly don't care if he had a say in the scouting and assembling of the team. just hire a director of football and then he can hire some real scouts. i'm so over this the manager is responsible for everything.

Right, because a director of football i.e. someone who doesn't know enough to become a manager, knows more about which players to sign than the manager.

As opposed to someone like AVB, or better still, Mark Hughes who know how to manage effectively and brilliantly. Job after job.

Perhaps DoFs don't want to get involved in the day to day of managing? Johan Cruyff is a director of football.

the skills required to be a director of football are totally different from those required to be manager. it's logical that it would be easier to find an excellent DoF and an excellent manager than it would be to find someone who'd be an excellent DoF and manager.

fwiw, i think a lot of teams don't take the DoF role seriously. it's sort of like where US baseball teams used to be 10 yrs ago, before they started hiring really smart guys with harvard degrees instead of some ex-player who didnt know shit but was famous.

kamikaze wrote:

the skills required to be a director of football are totally different from those required to be manager. it's logical that it would be easier to find an excellent DoF and an excellent manager than it would be to find someone who'd be an excellent DoF and manager.

Yep. The biggest advantage is continuity. You don't lose your ability to scout and sign players if the manager leaves, for instance. Some managers need the room to make the decisions themselves but far from all of them do. I think a lot of English clubs would benefit from having a DoF when you keep in mind how often they switch managers. Only Ferguson, Wenger and Moyes have stayed for more than a couple of years at one club since Premier League was formed.

plus, being a good manager doesn't mean that you're a good talent scout. totally different skillsets.

i'm certain that this is one of the big inefficiencies in european football. i don't think clubs have made any effort to quantify with any sort of intellectual rigour, who adds value with their eye for talent and who doesn't. you see a lot of ridiculous guys named director of football for all kinds of clubs.

it's shocking when you think about how much money is spent on player acquisition and how important it is.

Meatwad wrote:

obviously a manager would have a say in the kind of players he want -- a list of names perhaps. it's his playing system after all, can't have the mismatch of players we have now who don't fit any system we're attempting to play. it just won't be his job to acquire them and determine what a good price is, just like it is on the continent (it seems to work for them, they kinda have superior teams to us). the manager is responsible for the training ground and match day.

You don't need a DoF for that, just a CEO with some more balls.

kamikaze wrote:

the skills required to be a director of football are totally different from those required to be manager. it's logical that it would be easier to find an excellent DoF and an excellent manager than it would be to find someone who'd be an excellent DoF and manager.

Or it's a lot easier to find an excellent manager than it is to find an excellent manager and an excellent DoF. You could have a great manager that's undermined by the DoF or vise versa.

fwiw, i think a lot of teams don't take the DoF role seriously. it's sort of like where US baseball teams used to be 10 yrs ago, before they started hiring really smart guys with harvard degrees instead of some ex-player who didnt know shit but was famous.

Those smart guys with harvard degrees have a place in the clubs management as directors or staff. Need someone who can help sign players? Fire Dick Law and hire someone or a team who knows how to budget and negotiate to get what you need. Need a good scouting system? Hire a qualified capable head scout.

The CEO and Chairmen should be the two most powerful men at the club and they both can provide the continuity, direction and infrastructure for it to be successful, a DoF is completely unnecessary and is a cosmetic position.

Dortmund have a director of football for the record. Klopp is hailed as the teambuilding genius (and there's certainly something to it) but Michael Zork is the one who has signed practically every single player over the last seven or eight years. Barcelona have always had a director of football too. Milan have a pretty famous one. It's pretty common outside of England. It wouldn't be if it were simply a cosmetic position.

They may all hold the title of DoF but I'm guessing they all have very different responsibilities, which is what I mean by the fact that it's cosmetic. It's just a title and then most of them are given some vague responsibility that any qualified person can take up. It all depends on the people at the top and I don't know how these other clubs work, but we have a CEO who in turn needs to surround himself with people who can get results off the pitch, on the pitch you have the manager and if he's to do his job well then he needs to have full control of his team, including those that are signed. Anyone in between with their own ideas will just create conflict.

Irish gunner wrote:

Making Wenger hand over a shortlist every year would be an excellent reform. Letting someone else deal with the negotiation side of things would be far better. We might have gotten Alonso, Mata, etc. with this system.

Rex wrote:

You don't think that happens?

It would appear not, since Wenger allegedly has the final say on how high we bid on players etc.

Klaus wrote:

Dortmund have a director of football for the record. Klopp is hailed as the teambuilding genius (and there's certainly something to it) but Michael Zork is the one who has signed practically every single player over the last seven or eight years. Barcelona have always had a director of football too. Milan have a pretty famous one. It's pretty common outside of England. It wouldn't be if it were simply a cosmetic position.

All Dutch clubs have a director of football as well.

See the same division in N American sports organizations with a President, GM and coach.

Im assuming for a large transfer to go ahead, we need acceptance over the fee first from Gazidis then Wenger then Kroenke, our negotiators such as Dick Law, are meant to have the role of "Director of football". Though I do think in the case of Dortmund it does make things easier when building a team and signing talents like Kagawa, Lewandowski.

If you give more than one person a share of the authority over a function, then you get a few things fairly naturally—capacity, you can get more work done in the area, redundancy, any one office holder can be replaced with less disruption, and also a degree of regulation where the multiple office holders are likely to moderate each other's practices (not always a good thing).

What you don't get as a matter of course is a good outcome, that's going to come down to the individuals and the parameters. Baldini at Spurs brokered a sweet deal for Bale but has done poorly recruiting—and that's an example where the manager actually begged the club for a technical director.

The way I think it should work, at Arsenal at least, is that the manager is in full control of the football side of it. By that I mean that you hire a manager who you trust when it comes to the players he wants for his team building and vision on the pitch to work. The manager should early come in with a numbered list of players he wants for every position ahead of the new season, and that is it. That is where his influence should stop.

The suits along with the owner should then handle the rest. Determine how much they are willing to spend, start as high up as possible on the manager's list and open negotiations with clubs and agents/players. The manager should have no input in that part of the operation IMO, and the suits should try to close deals as fast as possible. If the manager is needed to convince a player to sign he should be of course, because that is to do with the footballing side of things.

Martinez the man looks every bit the Arsenal manager. Wish he had some more time to prove himself before Wenger's contract runs out.

Martinez is an unknown quantity when it comes to signing and managing top class players. He is also as new as Moyes has proved to be when it comes to managing a team where you are expected to win pretty much every week. He is certainly the flavor of the year, but let's not pretend that it wouldn't be a massive gamble to bring him in here at this point.

Ha ha 2-0 Palace.

I know every right thinking person wants Wenger replaced asap, but seriously we are the Arsenal- We can do better that Martinez.

Or Rodgers he managed to take Liverpool to 7th spot with pretty much the squad they have now.