The Case for a Director of Football

I don't know enough about a Director of Football, but I think you have explained why countless clubs have gone down this road before. Is it achievable? I'm not so sure.

A director of football would have big input into the next appointment at the club should a manager leave.

Or else it's just up to Kenwright to hit Google and see what pops up... or hire an ex-Wigan manager.

That would surely have to be after the coach/manager has identified the players he wants wouldn't it?

Otherwise you've got the director of football picking the players for the manager!

I'd say that the head coach identifies what resources they need and the DoF would give him a range to choose from that matched the budget available. The resource could be from the academy, U21's or anywhere. There'd be constant communication between coach and DoF to keep on top of who is available. When the manager and DoF agree the DoF does all negotiations and contracts. The DoF would also offer the board a choice of Head Coaches with written analysis should the vacancy become available and they would make the selection based on this.

The idea would be to have checks and balances in place to stop a powerful "Manager" hijacking the club like Martinez did but also to make the board accountable for the selection of the head coach. The DoF would be a knowledgeable person who would sit on the board as Director of Football.

The head coach would have one responsibility and that would be to coach and select the first team in accordance with the guideline and philosophies of the club. He would have great influence with the academy, etc., but via the DoF.

Soccer clubs are 21st century businesses with people in important decision making positions who are total amateurs.

We need to change the club from top to bottom, and remove all the old-guard crap lying around. We're a 'jumpers for goalposts' club and it winds me up. We're held back by our own stubbornness in relying on our history - and that goes for supporters as much as the club itself.

Change the structure, change the club, change the philosophy, change the mindset of supporters, change everything - why are we being left behind? Because other clubs are miles ahead in the way they conduct things.

I'm sick to death of supporting the stuffy old Grandad of English football, and I want success, not past glories. It's bullshit.

Link

Nick - I was hoping to read a post containing a proper case, i.e. providing facts and examples of successes elsewhere. Sevilla have been held up as a model - Monchi by all accounts is the best in his field but has no coaching pedigree. However, Sevilla's situation could be the exception instead of the norm. To understand whether there is a case, one needs to see whether the division of labour - the heart of your argument I think - outweighs the importance of the absolute authority of a manager who decides who stays, who goes and who plays, who doesn't.

Will we as a club adopt this model? Maybe. The vast sums in transfers and wages which we appear to be contemplating next season may make it necessary and prudent to have someone whose sole job is to oversee this part. I hope, however, we stick to the current model, as I have not seen this work in the EPL. Ready to be proven wrong.

The General Manager is responsible for bringing in the players and that is almost always done in concert with the coach who identifies who he wants. The General Manager is then responsible for negotiating contracts and getting the deals done.

The Coach, well... he coaches.

It really amazes me in football that the Manager (Gaffer, Coach) seemingly handles all the phone calls, all the negotiations, all the contacts, etc. That has to be incredibly time consuming.

This is definitely a cultural difference, but I just don't see that as a use of productive time; time wisely spent.

I want my Manager actually managing - not on the phone convincing all and sundry to play for him and possibly getting involved with contract negotiations, trades (transfers), etc.

It's befuddled me why there isn't a person - General Manager / Director of Football - completely and solely responsible for these tasks and responsibilities.

From the outside looking in, we in American sports have a better system and application for divvying up these tasks.

The coach should say, "I want this guy, that guy, that dude..." etc. Then step aside and actually coach. He should be focusing on player fitness, training sessions, tactics, etc. Not spending all day long with a cell phone growing out of his ear with agents on the other end.

And Managers are often times ex-players. It seems to me when it comes to the negotiations and acquisitions I'd want someone with more "business savvy" and a good footballing mind - but not a coach per se...

It's very, very hard to wrap my head around why this isn't done more often over there.

Ignoring the fact that Martinez didn't 'hijack' the club (he merely performed the roles that were part of his job remit), that might well be "the idea", but the reality (at least in the English game) often descends into a ruinous power struggle between two egos, a pointing of fingers and a shifting of blame when it comes time to take responsibility for any failures.

Manager: "Not my choice. He fucking bought them.

Director Of Football: "I brought in all the right talent. Blame the tosser who trains them".

Our coaches and GMs generally (not always) work together and work well together. I don't understand why the two roles have to be in conflict, and why the blame game is played.

When a team goes south here, the powers-that-be analyze the situation, and frankly appropriate the lion's share of blame. One or the other, GM or Coach, is shown the door. It's usually a pretty clear case which one should go.

Shit players punching above their weight? GM is out.

Very good players not performing? Coach is gone.

Total shit train wreck? Both are tossed and the team starts afresh.

Moshri? I think he'd be up to it.

Bill? I think a Director of Football under his stewardship would be a nightmare.

Everton is a stuffy old club run by fuddy-duddies, and needs to modernise in every way. Cretinous? OK I'll take that on the chin if it makes you happy.

Jesus, James. You flinch at someone firing the word 'cretinous' your way and then you basically go and call us all Bill Kenwright by another name?

Jamie (12) nails it. I tend to make comparisons with our native AFL (with TV money at about 1/20th the value) and the differences are stark. It's also worth noting that while AFL clubs have visited EPL clubs, they learn little and tend to partner with NFL clubs to find the cutting edge. Below is a rundown of the basic structure of an AFL club which proves enlightening. The staff do not come and go with each change of coach but stand on their own performance. (sorry for the huge post!)

Football department employees:
Director of Football
Football Operations Manager
Executive Assistant
Player Wellbeing Manager
Opposition Analyst
Football Analysis Manager
Senior Football Analyst
Football Analyst
Football Analyst
Football Analyst
Dietitian
Player Development Manager
VFL General Manager
Property Manager
VFL Property Coordinator

Coaching department employees:
Senior Coach
Senior Assistant Coach
Assistant Coach (Backline)
Assistant Coach (Midfield)
Assistant Coach (Forward line)
Reserves Coach
Development Manager
Development Coach (Midfield)
Development Coach (Forward line)
Skill Acquisition Coordinator


Football high performance department employees:
High Performance Manager
Strength and Conditioning Coach
Sports Scientist
Head Trainer/Player Appearance Coordinator
Rehabilitation Coordinator
Strength Program Coordinator
Movement and Weights Specialist
Reserves Strength and Conditioning Coach

Doctor
Integrity Manager

List management department employees:
General Manager of List Management
Senior National Recruiting Assistant
National Recruiting Assistant
National Recruiting Assistant

The coach determines his team of assistants and has 'input' in certain areas but generally the structure remains intact. Could moving to a more progressive corporate structure where roles are carefully defined benefit Everton?

He does have a bit of a point. How many posts on here start with "I've supported my beloved blues since [fill in mid 20th century year]".

I mean, it is sort of true.

Though tbf Jim Rom and Barkley would benefit from some AFL training to slim the bulk off them ( like Folau did ) and gee them up a bit.

Anyway; If the DoF is a facilitator / bagman who gets who the manager wants, then OK

If he is there to push the Owner /Chairman's choice of player (via youtube, the press, agents etc ) on to the manager and when he complains - He's not what we want or need, he won't fit in...Only to be told - Make him fit in, you're the coach, coach him so he does. Then No.

We are not like Bill at all. We (most of us) talk about past glories in terms of setting a benchmark for what we expect going forward. Kenwright acts like the good days are behind us and he's just a nostalgic curator of a museum. He has no expectations of success and indeed expects our gratitude for the fact that we have yet to go bankrupt.

Our football seems to be the reverse. Extensive power vested in the hands of a few. Short term employees responsible for implementation of a long term strategy.

I've posted a fair bit about this recently. Football will change; the current model makes so little sense that it will have to. The idea of a guy stood at pitch level and taking charge of everything from tactics to multi million pound decisions is massively out of date.

The change in England will need someone to break the mould and gain an advantage. I hope that could be us. There might be plenty of examples of it not working but that doesn't mean it can't work. I wouldn't have thought Dennis Wise should ever have been a candidate, nor JFK. I'm not convinced by Joe Royle either. Maybe it's failure had not been the concept but the execution.

I would have thought the role is part football, part businessman. Someone who can buy into a vision and align every part of the club behind it.

The big gripe seems to be the transfer question. For me that's simple. The coach identifies the targets, and would be supported by the DoF and the scouting team. The DoF's key role there would be signing off on the transfer. So if our footballing vision says we will play out from the back, any attempt by a manager to sign Andy Carroll should be stopped immediately. If he identifies a player that fits our plan then no issue - the manager remains accountable for delivering within a framework.

This where Ernie (25) makes a good point; who is going to break the mold and cast off old school practices and modernise. English clubs seem uninterested in pursuing best practice and identifying trends beyond their own shores. Or is that an unfair assessment?

Could this also be a contributor to the long term status of the England national team? I think comparisons to other sports (UK) which have recruited people and science to improve or remain competitive such as Rugby and Olympics would be valid.

Anyway, back to Everton, any such change would need to be holus bolus and not a half step in so a DoF may not work unless there was comprehensive structural change IMO.

I just don't think it can work in the PL in the current environment. One thing to keep in mind is that most of the managers in the clubs regularly talk to each other and the general football community is a relatively closed shop (same managers seem to be hired time after time despite being regularly sacked). The manager of any club will want to have a lot of say in transfers and we've seen many examples where things have gone wrong when players have been brought in the manager didnt want or the manager didnt get the players he asked for. I just don't think a DoF would work and as for providing a list of suitable players, isn't that the point of having a head scout and scouting team?

As for wages and contracts, I'm pretty sure the manager does not negotiate the details of any contracts although he will know what his overall wage budget is. If there is a strong, properly functioning board then there is no need for DoF in the first place imo.

The manager should be in control of all team matters imo.

The Aussie cricket coach alluded to the improvement ( while it lasted ) as being due to, if not getting rid of some of these 1%-ers, then not concentrating on them to the detriment of the bigger picture, the basics, batting bowling and fielding.

Seems to me that the obvious choice would lie with 'some' devolving of responsibilities - not solving the unemployment problem in one go...at least for now.

You make a good case and include the most important point that the manager must have the final say. We wouldn't want the Chelsea scenario of an owner buying players he wants and forcing the manager to use them.

It appears to work well in Europe, but it's been tried before in England and failed. We would need to examine why it failed to avoid repeating the same mistakes and make improvements.

For example was the manager an old school English manager wanting control and resenting a DoF? Or was the DoF inexperienced with little knowledge of European and world teams and players?

With the right DoF and possibly a European manager experienced with such a system it should work in theory. Are we ready to take the gamble in practice though?

Still; at least we can explain the recent government figures claiming a fall in unemployment.

Jamie C

We dont do things that differently to you, we just carry more passengers . .and we give them different titles

A director of football to me is just red tape and I see loads of potential problems. It's worse if you pick wrong director of football as he's likely to be their for years implementing the wrong "philosophy" and buys - who judges this director of football - the board I guess? You could have the right manager but not realise it because of the football!

The one argument in favour is managers doing stuff short term instead of long term philosophy but that comes down to the board. Everton's board are patient - Chelsea on the otherhand are not.

Leave it as it is - surely this season has shown that football a simple game.

A world with less visions and more actions.

For example, relate the VFL to the equivalent or close to equiv that is wrapped up in the British scene.

The thread following this might be quite interesting as there are plenty of extremely bright and imaginative people on ToffeeWeb IMO!?

Having said that I like the idea of a Director of Football as I think it would provide a very important link between what happens at board level and on the pitch.

The challenge for the board would be to find two people whose experience and skill sets compliment each other, and even more importantly, can work together.

Board
Director of Football
Head Coach
Team Captain

In my view a Director of Football must have experience as a manager of a successful top flight team.

Peeps seem to be taking it to extremes though. Leicester didn't win the league because they went 'back to basics'. They won it through being exceptional at a way of playing. When you go through their first team you realise that not only did they have the right types of players for that system, they may have had the best out there. If you're playing a deep defence and an out and out pressuring striker, you need a midfielder who is quick and can go all day - is there anyone better than Kante at that fine detail?

I'm with Bobby in that you pick a style and find a way to be the best at it. So, no, you can't have the right manager with the wrong strategy. By definition any hire who doesn't fit the plan is a poor hire.

Test 1 - is he adhering to our plan?
Test 2 - are we improving?

Bobby still gets sacked under those tests.

Agree with Darren, way too many passengers get carried in football. They stab you in the back, the minute you turn your back, and as John says, any problems are always caused by somebody else.

Give it to the brothers, because I still shudder that Big Joe, firstly signed Claus Thompson, then must have sanctioned to the board, that he was worth 10K, a week!

The cost of all that must be enormous.

"who is going to break the mold and cast off old school practices and modernise."

I read this article a week or so ago about Leicester's approach "off the pitch". It seems they may have been the first to break the mould. Well worth a read.

Link

I wonder to what extent training programs change when a manager changes? That would be bad for the players wouldn't it?

I've had a strong suspicion for a while that Roberto was building Ross and Del into physically strong specimens that would fit his slow, slow, slow bang philosophy but lack stamina.

It's just another tick for the DoF style approach isn't it? You train the players for the style the club wants to play, not an individual manager.

Stubborn is the word that springs to mind. The reason I cite Kenwright is because he's accused by many of being stubborn, clinging to his blue-tinted view of Everton - a view shared by many as well.

Everton needs to let go of the past - and this is my overriding point - because it holds us back in my view. Kenwright, the way the club is run, even the way the club is supported (ooooh the Everton way/we're better than other clubs, if y'know yer 'istory etc etc, blah blah blah). It's all hot air, waffle, it's not forward thinking, decisive action in making the club a successful 21st century entity. We're tin-pot, old school and guess what? We haven't won shit for 21 years and hold absolutely no relevance to modern football at all. We're a relic, just like our crappy old stadium.

I want to support an Everton that's modern, and successful, not some dinosaur that relies on tradition and 'istory to make itself heard. Fuck that.

I wonder to what extent training programs change when a manager changes? That would be bad for the players wouldn't it?

I would think so. However Everton has a window of opportunity between now and the start of pre season training to:

Decide on the style of football they want us to play - this is the key issue in my view.
Appoint the Director of Football
Appoint the Coach (and his assistants)
Review the squad accordingly.

This is a lot of work in a short space of time unless of course the ground work has already been done.

About Barkley and Delboy - I think you are correct. Our departed frien Harold made this observation about Browning in particular. Too much weight work in the gym. But that is one of my pet subjects best kept for another thread. Suffice it to say the "Nordic board" approach in the Leicester article using self body weight appeals to me.

James # 42 - I agree we have to move with the times but Everton "having no relevance to modern football" is not a view shared by the Scudamore the executive secretary of the premier league. We still have much to be proud of.

Check his interview out on the offical website. –And we are getting a stadium on the waterfront ;)

I was really just highlighting the irony, rather than disagreeing but, now that you mention it, no I don't think James has a point.

It isn't Kenwright harking on about our history that people find cringeworthy. It's more him spinning tales with a side serving of soap queen sentimentality that puts himself in prime position at every pivotal event like a footballing version of Forrest Gump. Simply mentioning that "we've won the league quite a few times in the past", or "I've supported Everton since before Madonna was a badly soiled mattress", isn't 'the same thing' by any means.

Now, whilst I would guess there might well be a few Everton fans kind of similar to Kenwright....after they've had a few and finally got tired of staggering around saying "i fucking love you mate" to anyone who strolls on by...I wouldn't presume to say 'you're all the bloody same' on the back of it.  

It's like your wife reading a random article about how all men secretly prefer anal and then, on the basis of that, her calling you an absolute filthy bastard, firing a boot into your bollocks and banning you from bedroom duties for six weeks, when all you asked was if she wanted "Butter or Marge?".

In my opinion, there's nothing at all wrong with taking pride in and celebrating your history and past achievements, nor is there any reason why it should be seen as an impediment to change, progress or future success. 

Did Man United finally alter their fortunes by saying 'fuck you' to their history? Did they wipe their collective mind clean of previous players and vow never again talk about teams of the past? Did they ban Bobby Charlton for being a boring old baldy twat cramping their new fangled, forward looking style by banging on about stuff the kids no longer care about? Nah, they just happened to find a ruthless, determined, nasty bastard of a manager to drive them toward success and, once they'd got a sniff, they bloody capitalised on it. 

That's what Everton have been lacking as far as I'm concerned. Sheer bloody mindedness, determination and ruthlessness at the top. Not necessarily a more 'modern' structure with more meaningless job titles, more spare parts, more trembling hands to gather round and stir a pot containing nothing but the same old shit given a sexier name: 'New Turdally Awesome', 'Turdally Awesome On Fleek' and 'Turdally Awesome With Added Blood Bruv'. 

For too long there's been a message filtered down through the club, to the media and the fans, that the middle of the road is where we should be and we should thank our lucky stars if we can just stay there. People's Club, best of the rest, top of the points per pound league, punching above our weight, plucky underdogs. Piss off with your patronising platitudes. We're just proper pish....but we haven't always been. 

That's why I take an alternative view to yourself (as often seems to be the case between you and I) and believe it's actually important to keep banging on about the clubs history and pointing to accomplishments of the past, to remind ourselves and everybody else that Bang Fucking Average Avenue isn't Everton's rightful place in the pecking order, as they keep trying to make us believe. Past success should be embraced and used as inspiration to motivate people to try and make it happen once again. That's one thing Martinez seemed to understand at least. 

If EFC is going the DoF route, this is the most important thing for our owners to get right. Otherwise it's a waste of time; owner hires some butt-kisser, egos, power struggles, whose dick is bigger, etc. The whole thing doomed from the start.

Our players must look to play forward whenever possible and we must not miss a chance to turn, penetrate, or shoot.

No idea who wrote this mate but there is no evidence to suggest it is the chap you are thinking of.

Martin, why would Alex Ferguson want to be Everton's director of football?

Gone quiet on the new manager front.

From a Premier League point-of-view, as it nears its thirtieth birthday, "And if yer know, yer history" has about as much relevance to the world beyond Everton as does the brand of liniment Dixie used to slap on his thighs way back in the day.

Apart from not having been relegated in the Premier League we have no history worthy of recognition and that's why a Director of Football might, just might, be an idea worthy of consideration.

As the much quoted adage on insanity says, and we've done it way before the PL came to pass, repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes is proof positive that you are.

No you're not the only one who finds "It's a Grand Old Team To Play For" toe-curlingly embarrassing. But I find it embarrassing because it's a Celtic song. We're Everton.

Just posted this an another thread - Link

Love the images, Johnny Cash-style rhythm, clappy bit, chorus etc (can see myself giving this loads after a 3-0 derby win).

Cheers for the link to the song. You're spot on about the Johnny Cash sound - like a mash up of Jackson & I Saw The Light. Did I read about you in Brian Viner's great book 'Looking For The Toffees'? Cracker story bout The Scout!

Dave #61

Ta for that, suppose it's one of those what came first, the chicken or the egg type thingies. Glen Daly, whose 1961 recording is played at each Celtic home game gave credit for the song to the late Charlie Tully of Belfast Celtic & Glasgow Celtic.

"Charlie would invariably sing the praises of his beloved Belfast Celts with; “Sure it’s a grand old team to play for.”
A version of only a few choruses perhaps, but Glen Daly recalled it years later, when he recorded his own ‘Celtic Song’.

I remember (ages ago) there was a post (must have been on TW) asking for Everton-related stories and I remember writing down a story that my (late) pater told me about the Lord Montague scandal and two fellers he heard in the Bullens discussing it.

(If that's it, yes).

By doing that we are in fact acknowledging that it's all about our history and never about out future.

I sing all those songs but by christ I wish I had a few newer ones to sing.

Like 'We're going to win the league' !!

Yeah, funny story about the Daily Express racing tipster, I think Brian Viner said you told him it was one of your Dad's tales. I'm guessing you got your sense of humour from him.
Keep 'em coming, we need all the laughs we can get on here.