DOF System

[dagraham]

I know this has been discussed numerous times but in the light of AVB's sacking I think its worth re-visiting.

For me, the DOF system (in England at least) is a bit like communism : great in theory but rarely works in practice.

The top two arguments in favour seems to be :

1) In modern football and business in general the trend is towards specialist departments and positions, with more bureaucracy, more division of power etc. With the game being global and the sport being more professional, the days of the manager wielding power have gone and managers(or head coaches) should be free to focus on 1st teams matters only.

Is this the best way to run a football club though? Does the theory translate itself to football? It has worked on the continent (with Sevilla a prime example) but its not without its problems there either. It may be that there is more patience on the continent with less competitive leagues and that the culture of football in England is just not conducive to it.

Whatever your views on it it can't be denied that our most successful period of recent years have been when the system was ditched. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so.

Imo the manager needs full control over signings. That doesn't mean Levy writes them a blank cheque, they still have to operate with financial constraints and there can still be a chief executive like David Dein/David Gill etc working in tandem with the manager but the guy responsible for results on the pitch should be able to shape the team. There are many facets of building the team, talent and stats of players are only one. The character, injury history, past career, intelligence of players etc are all important too.

Let the football people get on with it. It might sound old fashioned but just because something is modern, doesn't mean its always inherently better.

2) The system allows for greater stability. The chairman/CEO and DOF are the constant, therefore when the head coaches come and go, the player recruitment side is undisturbed and the long term structure and plan of the club remain stable.

Is this stability a red herring? I think it is. Far from creating a stable environment, the committee in charge of signings creates friction.

The end result is the relationships breaking down. We've seen it over again, first with Santini, Levy and Arneson, then Jol, Commoli and Levy and now AVB, Baldini and Levy.

After the inevitable happens a new manager/head coach comes in bringing new ideas, staff and players come and go and the process begins again. Where is the stability in that?

The overriding feeling is that the system can work as long as all parties are on the same wavelength. But Baldini was supposed to be handpicked by AVB and yet the same problems are rearing their ugly head.

It really is time to abandon the system imo or at the very least put an end to the "comittee" with less politics at the club. Or we might as well just give the job to Bill Murray as it will be Groundhog Day over and over again.

 

[Donki]

I think the DOF should work well if the DOF is in place at the club first and has 100% control over who the head coach is. That way there is an immediate understanding on team objectives, system and tactcs and the players required. That said any head coach should understand his place and be dynamic enough to work with a DOF, I mean thats what they do. Again like with everything communication and versitility is key if both roles are to work well.

 

[dagraham]

I think the DOF should work well if the DOF is in place at the club first and has 100% control over who the head coach is. That way there is an immediate understanding on team objectives, system and tactcs and the players required. That said any head coach should understand his place and be dynamic enough to work with a DOF, I mean thats what they do. Again like with everything communication and versitility is key if both roles are to work well.

Well we only have one example of that and it was Ramos. Hardly a success story.

 

[Kiedis]

I'm a fan of the DoF model. It's obviously very much maligned in England, but in this era, where we wont see dynasties like Wenger and Ferguson, the stability has to come from somewhere.

But on order for it to work, there has to be a clear division of labour. The board will have to decide on the long term goals and strategys, and then leave the DoF and his co workers to implement them. And then stand by his decisions and not interfere in day to day dealings.

At Spurs, the manager (head coach) came before the DoF, and even though they supposedly had a good relationship, it soon went sour, if we're to believe what we read.

The DoF will have to lead the process of hiring the head coach and agree on long term strategies and division of labour before the coach is hired.

I think it's the best suited strategy, provided you can get a good DoF, and the entire club is set up to accomodate the stucture.

At Spurs, I have a feeling that Levy will undermine managers and DoFs on a regular basis, and that the board will whine to the media (off the record) in a way that is closer to Palermo than Man United when it comes to "club maturity" and stability.

 

[Donki]

Well we only have one example of that and it was Ramos. Hardly a success story.

I did say it should work .

We also have plenty of examples of managers being shite also.

 

[Ribble]

Well we only have one example of that and it was Ramos. Hardly a success story.

Arnesen brought in Jol too.

 

[Rout-Ledge]

Arnesen brought in Jol too.

And then immediately pissed off, making a mockery of the notion of 'stability of director of football.'

I think having a Baldini/Commolli type to schmooze and assist with transfer deals is great, and even assisting with the selection of targets. But ultimately it's the manager's team and if he doesn't want a player then you have to accept that. Buying players the manager doesn't want is always going to lead to trouble.

 

[mark87]

I'm only a fan of it if he just signs the players wanted by the manager, they shouldn't have any say in who to bring in, the manager says who he wants and the dof goes out and gets them.

 

[Donki]

And then immediately pissed off, making a mockery of the notion of 'stability of director of football.'

I think having a Baldini/Commolli type to schmooze and assist with transfer deals is great, and even assisting with the selection of targets. But ultimately it's the manager's team and if he doesn't want a player then you have to accept that. Buying players the manager doesn't want is always going to lead to trouble.

To be fair to Harry I think this is what Harry has said in the Sun today. If your a "head coach" as opposed to a "manager" you are accepting that working under a DOF your maybe not going to get the exact players you want and you work with what your given from a list of potential targets drawn up between coach and DOF.

 

[dagraham]

And then immediately pissed off, making a mockery of the notion of 'stability of director of football.'

I think having a Baldini/Commolli type to schmooze and assist with transfer deals is great, and even assisting with the selection of targets. But ultimately it's the manager's team and if he doesn't want a player then you have to accept that. Buying players the manager doesn't want is always going to lead to trouble.

Yep. It's this notion of stability that the system is supposed to bring that doesn't sit right with me. It always seems to do the exact opposite.

The most stable clubs seems to either have owners who keep in the background, with solid relationships between manager and chief exec (Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool etc )or clubs where the chairman/owner is in harmony with the manager (Everton).

There are far too many layers of management and interferences with the football side of things at Spurs. You can get away with it at Chelsea or City as you can throw money at the problem. For a club like ours, where resources are limited, we can't afford to change direction constantly.

 

[absolute bobbins]

You need to be selective with your comparisons on the continent, like likes of Barça and Real Madrid who have Directors of Football are not football clubs.
Whilst football may be the most visible department they compete in many other sports and a director of football often operates as an old EPL Chief Exec would but with the overview from the elected president.

If a DoF is to work then firstly you need the right man (the hard part), he then has to remain in the position for a number of years (Harder) with oversight but without interference from the chairman (hardest).

It is working at City, be under no illusion that Pellegrini is buying the players, it's Txiki Begiristain and it was Begiristain who hired a coach that would want and be capable of utilising the players

 

[Ribble]

And then immediately pissed off, making a mockery of the notion of 'stability of director of football.'

I think having a Baldini/Commolli type to schmooze and assist with transfer deals is great, and even assisting with the selection of targets. But ultimately it's the manager's team and if he doesn't want a player then you have to accept that. Buying players the manager doesn't want is always going to lead to trouble.

Yeah that was an utter body blow. Always thought it was intentionally to mess us up too, they barely seemed to pay attention to Arnesen in his time at Chelsea.



DoFs should always be looking for players to fit the system, what the Head coach feels is required. If AVB asked for Moutinho, Hulk and Anderson then Baldini should have gotten players who were at least similar. Instead he didn't buy a central playmaker at all but spent £26m on a DM and a box-to-box player and, rather than two players with physicality on their side who would be able to handle the league right away in the attacking slots, bought two kids who most definitely haven't.

 

[dagraham]

You need to be selective with your comparisons on the continent, like likes of Barça and Real Madrid who have Directors of Football are not football clubs.
Whilst football may be the most visible department they compete in many other sports and a director of football often operates as an old EPL Chief Exec would but with the overview from the elected president.

If a DoF is to work then firstly you need the right man (the hard part), he then has to remain in the position for a number of years (Harder) with oversight but without interference from the chairman (hardest).

It is working at City, be under no illusion that Pellegrini is buying the players, it's Txiki Begiristain and it was Begiristain who hired a coach that would want and be capable of utilising the players

But City shit money. Therefore not only can they buy ready made world class players but if it doesn't work out they can just spunk more money on a fix. We can't afford to do that.

 

[Rout-Ledge]

DoFs should always be looking for players to fit the system, what the Head coach feels is required. If AVB asked for Moutinho, Hulk and Anderson then Baldini should have gotten players who were at least similar.

If your a "head coach" as opposed to a "manager" you are accepting that working under a DOF your maybe not going to get the exact players you want and you work with what your given from a list of potential targets drawn up between coach and DOF.

Not getting the exact players you want is one thing, but if a player the manager wants is available and affordable and is rejected in favour of a player (even if similar/same position or role) the DOF fancies getting in then that's never going to work out.

The manager will never have carte blanche as to who is signed...but the manager should always have the right to say no to a player he doesn't want. You trust the manager with the squad, and if you you truly want to succeed you need to have faith in him to make those calls for himself.

 

[absolute bobbins]

But City shit money. Therefore not only can they buy ready made world class players but if it doesn't work out they can just spunk more money on a fix. We can't afford to do that.

So? You're not really saying anything that disagrees with my argument. If anything City can afford to leave the black AMEX with a manager and let him get on with it.

 

[Ribble]

Not getting the exact players you want is one thing, but if a player the manager wants is available and affordable and is rejected in favour of a player (even if similar/same position or role) the DOF fancies getting in then that's never going to work out.

Indeed, feels like AVB spent 2 seasons watching us spend a fortune in the middle of the park and yet was still left asking "what about Joao?". Had we bought Moutinho in the first summer would we have bought Dembele or Paulinho, who added up to more than him in total? If Monaco put him down as €25m this summer then why not offer Porto the same and let him decide? Why not chase someone, hell anyone who could play in the same role?

It feels like there was a plan being pursued, but it wasn't the plan that AVB had laid out.

 

[jezz]

Its alright asking for players, but when they want £150 thousand a week plus then its not going to happen.
Managers have to accept that and move on.
If AVB didnt want the signings he should have done the respectable thing and walked.
Its a two way street and you dont get everything.
Football is global now, the DOF is a good thing imo.
Managers cant build contacts across the globe and be jetting of everywhere when there are 60 odd games a season.
There is not enough time in the day to do everything.
Managers know the score when they get the job, if they dont like it dont take the job.
Harry would have never built the squad we have now with so many different internationals.

 

[Rout-Ledge]

Had we bought Moutinho in the first summer would we have bought Dembele or Paulinho, who added up to more than him in total?

And the purchases of Sigurdsson and Dempsey hardly screamed 'AVB' either. That money could've gone towards the player he actually wanted.

I think AVB is a very limited manager with some severe flaws in his approach to coaching. But I also think he was undermined from word go and we absolutely didn't give him the best chance to succeed at Spurs. It's a mess entirely of our own making.

 

[Ribble]

I think AVB is a very limited manager with some severe flaws in his approach to coaching. But I also think he was undermined from word go and we absolutely didn't give him the best chance to succeed at Spurs. It's a mess entirely of our own making.

I think he's most likely one of those managers who is very dogmatic in his approach to football rather than immediately adaptive, which is why things have gone so wrong at the two clubs where he has been immediately questioned whilst it went so right at the two he wasn't. In that way I guess he is very much like Mourinho, but perhaps with not enough of the self aggrandising arrogance to pull it off in England?

 

[Rout-Ledge]

I think he's most likely one of those managers who is very dogmatic in his approach to football rather than immediately adaptive, which is why things have gone so wrong at the two clubs where he has been immediately questioned whilst it went so right at the two he wasn't. In that way I guess he is very much like Mourinho, but perhaps with not enough of the self aggrandising arrogance to pull it off in England?

He lacks the gravitas of Mourinho, the wit, the psychological nuances and is incapable of playing the media (which is actually quite useful).