Bonjour Pierre

TheBigToePunt said:
I kind of imagine it's the other way around, that the DoF will have given Sage the squad list and an idea of who or what positions we are trying to make signings, so that Sage can mull over what system he thinks is best.

I just can't see what the point is in a DoF otherwise?
Click to expand...
To meet with clubs, agents, players, to discuss financials.

To engage in transfer & squad planning based around the manager's instructions, not the other way around.
 
Eaglecoops said:
We do have a pre season to see whether he cuts the mustard so to speak and we’ll certainly have an idea of his tactics by the time the season starts.
Click to expand...
Will the Como Cup and a run out against Bromley really tell us anything of substance?
 
Linford said:
To meet with clubs, agents, players, to discuss financials.

To engage in transfer & squad planning based around the manager's instructions, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
But surely the stuff in your first line is just the simple functions of a chairman, club secretary, or other senior administrator? You wouldn't need a person directing football operations to liaise and negotiate on non-football stuff like money.

Plenty of people have argued that a DoF should work as per your second line, and I would like it to be that way, but that's not how modern football works, surely? A managers stay is almost always shorter than a typical players contract. Players are far more expensive assets. A manager will want the best, ready made players right now, the club will want development value. The manager will want to keep his best players, the club will be mindful of the need to sell when value is highest, before contracts begin to run down. We have seen all of this recently. I find it very hard to believe any manager now gets that kind of power. City did it for Pep, but otherwise I think the DoF calls the shots when all is said and done, especially at a club like Palace, who absolutely must trade well.
 
TheBigToePunt said:
But surely the stuff in your first line is just the simple functions of a chairman, club secretary, or other senior administrator? You wouldn't need a person directing football operations to liaise and negotiate on non-football stuff like money.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. They don't touch the nitty gritty of that stuff. They will set limits and those who do the nitty gritty have to work within that framework, but the brass at the top of the club don't do sporting negotiations.

Back in the day it was handled by the manager. Nowadays it is the Director of Football, and depending on the structure of a particular club 10 others with similar titles who also work in his department.
 
TheBigToePunt said:
Plenty of people have argued that a DoF should work as per your second line, and I would like it to be that way, but that's not how modern football works, surely? A managers stay is almost always shorter than a typical players contract. Players are far more expensive assets. A manager will want the best, ready made players right now, the club will want development value. The manager will want to keep his best players, the club will be mindful of the need to sell when value is highest, before contracts begin to run down. We have seen all of this recently. I find it very hard to believe any manager now gets that kind of power. City did it for Pep, but otherwise I think the DoF calls the shots when all is said and done, especially at a club like Palace, who absolutely must trade well.
Click to expand...
Well yes, that's exactly why they have DOFs. That isn't to say that it doesn't come from the manager though.

The manager will identify, in tandem with the DOF, what profile is needed.

The DOF will then identify players within that profile and return to the manager.

Between the two of them, they will identify targets... all within a budget formulated from above.

The DOF then goes off and tries to secure those targets, by negotiating with clubs and agents.

They come back and if they are not successful the process starts from the beginning, identifying alternatives, perhaps from a list they drew up in the beginning or if it has been completely exhausted then from scratch.

The DOF also has some sway over managerial appointments, usually, and that is how they ensure continuity and therefore ensure that targets will be compatible with multiple managers which as you rightly say players tend to outlast.
 
Linford said:
Well yes, that's exactly why they have DOFs. That isn't to say that it doesn't come from the manager though.

The manager will identify, in tandem with the DOF, what profile is needed.

The DOF will then identify players within that profile and return to the manager.

Between the two of them, they will identify targets... all within a budget formulated from above.

The DOF then goes off and tries to secure those targets, by negotiating with clubs and agents.

They come back and if they are not successful the process starts from the beginning, identifying alternatives, perhaps from a list they drew up in the beginning or if it has been completely exhausted then from scratch.

The DOF also has some sway over managerial appointments, usually, and that is how they ensure continuity and therefore ensure that targets will be compatible with multiple managers which as you rightly say players tend to outlast.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there's some of that stuff involved, and it would turn into a shitshow very quickly if the DoF was signing players the manager thought were of the totally wrong type, not least because (as you say) the former has a hand in appointing the latter!

Still though, the point remains. I take 'type' or 'profile' of player to mean, for instance, Sage might say he wants a fast, skillful striker and not a tall, strong one. That would be a 'profile' and to identify that is different to saying "Just get me the best striker you possibly can, and I'll adapt to his strengths". Even if Sage is only outlining profiles, that's still building a squad in the tactical image of one guy who is here for the short term.

Plus, if the mad roundabout of the transfer market happens to dictate that Palace can get their hands on, for example, four centre backs who are slow but excellent, or a top class keeper who isn't great with his feet, and these guys are in budget and have development value, then as a business we surely need the manager to play a three centre backs system, to play deep, and not to play out from the back very much. I just can't see that palace can target a profile of player to fit a style of play and system at the expense of business realities.

Even when the stars seem to align and we get a top class bargain in a very specific profile who is absolutely perfect for the managers system, like Munoz, it probably isn't because we've bought him to order for the manager. We had needed a new right back for ages by that point, and Munoz made brilliant business sense first and foremost. The great fit with the Glasner 343 was probably little more than a wonderful bonus.

Anyway, like all workplace structures I'm sure it can be made to work well if the components cooperate, and will fall apart of they don't!
 
Linford said:
Well yes, that's exactly why they have DOFs. That isn't to say that it doesn't come from the manager though.

The manager will identify, in tandem with the DOF, what profile is needed.

The DOF will then identify players within that profile and return to the manager.

Between the two of them, they will identify targets... all within a budget formulated from above.

The DOF then goes off and tries to secure those targets, by negotiating with clubs and agents.

They come back and if they are not successful the process starts from the beginning, identifying alternatives, perhaps from a list they drew up in the beginning or if it has been completely exhausted then from scratch.

The DOF also has some sway over managerial appointments, usually, and that is how they ensure continuity and therefore ensure that targets will be compatible with multiple managers which as you rightly say players tend to outlast.
Click to expand...
Begs the question who Larsen and Johnson were bought for as I doubt that Sage was involved in those discussions 6 months ago and it was already clear that Glasner was off.
It’s the problem of buying expensive players when you don’t know who the manager will be or system that will be employed.

It’s worse for revolving door clubs that sometimes employ 3 managers in a season.
It’s a recipe for disjointed and bloated squads with individual managers having preferences for different players which clubs try to accommodate and purchase during the honeymoon early days of their tenure.

I don’t see an easy solution.
Even if the manager doesn’t have responsibility for the transfer policy and the club selects the players who’s to say a new manager may not rate those players or they may not suit their system.
De Boer didn’t rate Delaney and Ward and Hodgson was reluctant to use JPM.
All have been very good players for the club though under different managers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top