We DON’T want a Director of Football

As You Were

Goalkeeper
Been reading quite a few articles and people suggesting recently this is a good idea for us because of the mess we are in. I personally don’t think it’s the answer. All they end up doing is treading on the managers toes and signing players the manager doesn’t want which is a recipe for disaster. What we need is to appoint a good manager, which good scouts in place and back him in the transfer market. Forget director of football. And no parkinson isn’t a good manager.
 

Arfa Sleep

Goalkeeper
Been reading quite a few articles and people suggesting recently this is a good idea for us because of the mess we are in. I personally don’t think it’s the answer. All they end up doing is treading on the managers toes and signing players the manager doesn’t want which is a recipe for disaster. What we need is to appoint a good manager, which good scouts in place and back him in the transfer market. Forget director of football. And no parkinson isn’t a good manager.
I might be wrong but, you wouldn't have a manager and a DoF it would be a head coach. Appreciate that's probably a daft difference to some. Done properly it can and does work, we've just never done it properly. Having more than two scouts would be a cracking start to either method.
 

RichD

Striker
Been reading quite a few articles and people suggesting recently this is a good idea for us because of the mess we are in. I personally don’t think it’s the answer. All they end up doing is treading on the managers toes and signing players the manager doesn’t want which is a recipe for disaster. What we need is to appoint a good manager, which good scouts in place and back him in the transfer market. Forget director of football. And no parkinson isn’t a good manager.
I used to think that anarl marra however times change. I really think a good DOF would help the manager not hinder him.
 
It doesn't have to be a "director of football" per se. What we need is a long term strategy and vision which is going to outlast a single change of manager, and which is used to shape future transfer business and managerial appointments. And, probably, somebody who is in charge of executing that. Call them what you like, it's not about having a particular person, it's about having an overall plan.
 

riffraff

Striker
It doesn't have to be a "director of football" per se. What we need is a long term strategy and vision which is going to outlast a single change of manager, and which is used to shape future transfer business and managerial appointments. And, probably, somebody who is in charge of executing that. Call them what you like, it's not about having a particular person, it's about having an overall plan.
a plan? A Plan? A PLAN! Otherwise known as “the P word” in and around the sol and aol.
 

GyanMan

Reserve Squad
A director of football is a long term role and allows for all signings to be made in a similar style. Replacing managers means potential for players to be frozen out due to not fitting a new managers style. It also would help manager recruitment as the incoming manager would know the style of football the players want and like to play as well.
 
A director of football is a long term role and allows for all signings to be made in a similar style. Replacing managers means potential for players to be frozen out due to not fitting a new managers style. It also would help manager recruitment as the incoming manager would know the style of football the players want and like to play as well.
I agree with this. If we appoint a good D of F we should ensure that managers are appointed who fit our identity. So in theory we shouldnt need new managers undergoing a massive rebuilding campaign to get players that fit their way of playing.

We're crying out for continuity and it ain't going to happen without one imo. You could argue that we should just appoint a decent manager. Fair enough. But theres no guarantee a decent manager would hang around, so getting a set identity within the club, I'd say, is more important.
 

Zidane

Winger
What you want is a vision and football philosophy that permeates through every youth team and you stick with it for several years.

You then make all your decision making around whether a particular player a) fits within that style b) is good enough. And when you change manager you get a manager with a similar style of play and are not going from 20 possession based players to 20 long ball players.
SD has effectively just sanctioned that complete change again and has learned nothing from Ellis Short. The players are overpaid, just like under Ellis Short, they are slow plodders, just like under Ellis Short.

This whole league 1 visit has been a huge opportunity lost and SD etc are rank amateurs.

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced they have no idea what they are doing but worryingly I actually they think they do.
 

Lanchester

New Member
We need one. It's the only way we ever get off this cycle of managers failing within 12 - 18 months, and leaving behind a completely imbalanced squad which doesn't fit what the new manager wants. But we need a good one. Unfortunately we are owned by people who think they are playing football manager, so they'd be unlikely to want to appoint one. And even if they did, they would in all likelihood appoint someone who couldn't hack it in management at Eastleigh.
 

Thurston

Winger
It doesn't have to be a "director of football" per se. What we need is a long term strategy and vision which is going to outlast a single change of manager, and which is used to shape future transfer business and managerial appointments. And, probably, somebody who is in charge of executing that. Call them what you like, it's not about having a particular person, it's about having an overall plan.
Well said.
 

Coeus

Striker
Thrashing about and relying upon employees whose job depends on next months results is not conducive to long term success.
 

Top