The dark shadow of the D.O.F. (Jol wanted Elano and was ignored).

[Parky]

Damien Comolli is for me the main reason Jol is out of a job at Spurs and the schemer behind the disgraceful handling of a manager who delivered 5th in the PL and almost got them into the CL recently. Comolli was behind the campaign for Ramos and has been chasing him ever since the summer when apparently Spurs directors were 'dissapointed' with Spurs 5th place which says a lot more about them than Jol. Comolli has wanted a man who can fit into the Spurs continental DOF set up and he has also wanted more control something which Jol hasn't been happy with and fought allegedly. It is no surprise to me that Jol has sought advice from the LMA.

 

Avram Grant is another of this type. A manager with paper thin CV has imo cajoled and schemed his way into Chelsea and also imo been whispering in dark corners agains Mourinho (great CV one of the best managers in the game). How the fuck did one of the best managers in the world lose his job and this strange character with hardly any football experience outside of Israel wind up as Chelsea manager?

 

Happy Harry has already come up against two of them almost as if they were stalking him, firstly Velimir Zajec at Pompey, then Sir Clive Woodward from the world of Rugby at Southampton...Happily Harry has outlived them both, perhaps his London bred infighting skills made the differance.

DOF's are there to take the pressure off the manager and handle the day to day stuff that affects the side and be a strong influence in long term development which would include player purchuses.

 

 

Thus far they just look like scheming cunts to me. When Ramos fails I'd like to see Comolli walk as well, but somehow I doubt it.

 

 

I would be against a DOF system at Newcastle unless expressly chosen and desired by Allardyce.

[Keefaz]

Good post, Parky, can't disagree with much there.

[La Parka]

Quality post! Agree 100%.

[NE5]

Damien Comolli is for me the main reason Jol is out of a job at Spurs and the schemer behind the disgraceful handling of a manager who delivered 5th in the PL and almost got them into the CL recently. Comolli was behind the campaign for Ramos and has been chasing him ever since the summer when apparently Spurs directors were 'dissapointed' with Spurs 5th place which says a lot more about them than Jol. Comolli has wanted a man who can fit into the Spurs continental DOF set up and he has also wanted more control something which Jol hasn't been happy with and fought allegedly. It is no surprise to me that Jol has sought advice from the LMA.

 

Avram Grant is another of this type. A manager with paper thin CV has imo cajoled and schemed his way into Chelsea and also imo been whispering in dark corners agains Mourinho (great CV one of the best managers in the game). How the fuck did one of the best managers in the world lose his job and this strange character with hardly any football experience outside of Israel wind up as Chelsea manager?

 

Happy Harry has already come up against two of them almost as if they were stalking him, firstly Velimir Zajec at Pompey, then Sir Clive Woodward from the world of Rugby at Southampton...Happily Harry has outlived them both, perhaps his London bred infighting skills made the differance.

DOF's are there to take the pressure off the manager and handle the day to day stuff that affects the side and be a strong influence in long term development which would include player purchuses.

 

 

Thus far they just look like scheming cunts to me. When Ramos fails I'd like to see Comolli walk as well, but somehow I doubt it.

 

I would be against a DOF system at Newcastle unless expressly chosen and desired by Allardyce.

 

At the end of the day, the buck for the playing side of things must come down to one man.

 

And that is the manager. Its interesting that some of these clubs that have been said to have "good structures" are now falling apart, most notably Spuds and Bolton.

 

If the manager knows what he is doing, then the "planning", and "structure" etc etc fall into place and it becomes the "right system".

 

 

[Parky]

Damien Comolli is for me the main reason Jol is out of a job at Spurs and the schemer behind the disgraceful handling of a manager who delivered 5th in the PL and almost got them into the CL recently. Comolli was behind the campaign for Ramos and has been chasing him ever since the summer when apparently Spurs directors were 'dissapointed' with Spurs 5th place which says a lot more about them than Jol. Comolli has wanted a man who can fit into the Spurs continental DOF set up and he has also wanted more control something which Jol hasn't been happy with and fought allegedly. It is no surprise to me that Jol has sought advice from the LMA.

 

Avram Grant is another of this type. A manager with paper thin CV has imo cajoled and schemed his way into Chelsea and also imo been whispering in dark corners agains Mourinho (great CV one of the best managers in the game). How the fuck did one of the best managers in the world lose his job and this strange character with hardly any football experience outside of Israel wind up as Chelsea manager?

 

Happy Harry has already come up against two of them almost as if they were stalking him, firstly Velimir Zajec at Pompey, then Sir Clive Woodward from the world of Rugby at Southampton...Happily Harry has outlived them both, perhaps his London bred infighting skills made the differance.

DOF's are there to take the pressure off the manager and handle the day to day stuff that affects the side and be a strong influence in long term development which would include player purchuses.

 

 

Thus far they just look like scheming cunts to me. When Ramos fails I'd like to see Comolli walk as well, but somehow I doubt it.

 

I would be against a DOF system at Newcastle unless expressly chosen and desired by Allardyce.

 

At the end of the day, the buck for the playing side of things must come down to one man.

 

And that is the manager. Its interesting that some of these clubs that have been said to have "good structures" are now falling apart, most notably Spuds and Bolton.

 

If the manager knows what he is doing, then the "planning", and "structure" etc etc fall into place and it becomes the "right system".

 

 

 

What I also find faintly ridiculous is that managers with a vision ie SA and Mourinho are deemed to need someone above them TO GUIDE THEM. On another level I think interfering chairman like a DOF as it gives them another card to play and someone who does their bidding. No mistaking Roman and Levy are behing the semi-crisis at their respective clubs.

[Dr Spectrum]

Happy Harry has already come up against two of them almost as if they were stalking him, firstly Velimir Zajec at Pompey, then Sir Clive Woodward from the world of Rugby at Southampton...Happily Harry has outlived them both, perhaps his London bred infighting skills made the differance.

DOF's are there to take the pressure off the manager and handle the day to day stuff that affects the side and be a strong influence in long term development which would include player purchuses.

 

 

Thus far they just look like scheming cunts to me. When Ramos fails I'd like to see Comolli walk as well, but somehow I doubt it.

 

 

Appy Arry started off at Portmouth as DoF to Graham Rix. Scheming Cunt probably quite apt in his case. Manager in waiting from the moment he took the job.

[Baggio]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

[ChezGiven]

It all depends on the how decision-making is structured, who holds ultimate power and whether everyone is managed by the boss/top-dog at the club to pull in the same direction.

 

More complex organisationally but that can be managed by the right people.

[NE5]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

[Parky]

It all depends on the how decision-making is structured, who holds ultimate power and whether everyone is managed by the boss/top-dog at the club to pull in the same direction.

 

More complex organisationally but that can be managed by the right people.

 

Europeans have a different approach to descision making as we both have experienced Chez.

[Baggio]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

 

Who has ever said the manager shouldn't be in charge of the playing side?

 

A DOF is there to run everything else, I see you've mentioned Arsenal in that when Wenger was talking a few months back about how he needs a DOF now David Dein had left, Liverpool also have Parry who's clued up about the football side of things.

 

A manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, other things like youth development and scouting of young players around the World should be left to someone else who is independent of the manager.

 

Football has become too big of a business now to have one man try to do everything when the first team is more than enough responsibility.

[Parky]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

Benny the bad boy Benitez left his last job cause of the dof.

[NE5]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

 

Who has ever said the manager shouldn't be in charge of the playing side?

 

A DOF is there to run everything else, I see you've mentioned Arsenal in that when Wenger was talking a few months back about how he needs a DOF now David Dein had left, Liverpool also have Parry who's clued up about the football side of things.

 

A manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, other things like youth development and scouting of young players around the World should be left to someone else who is independent of the manager.

 

Football has become too big of a business now to have one man try to do everything when the first team is more than enough responsibility.

 

didn't Wenger say he would have no objections to having a DOF so long as he did what he told him to do ?

 

You can call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day they are or should be scouts and / or assistants to the manager of the football club, and that is their place, and that is what they are. And it is up to the manager who he wants as his assistants, how many people he wants, and what he wants them to do.

 

Edit: I understand the role that Parry, Kenyon and Gill do at their clubs ie the day to day running of the club, every club has someone doing this job, but you don't have to be clued up about football to do that and I bet the managers of all these clubs would not tolerate them sticking their nose into how he runs his team.

 

You have mentioned Spuds a lot and this way of doing things. Isn't it true that both George Graham and Glenn Hoddle had problems with David Pleat who was employed to be a "DOF" ?

[Baggio]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

 

Who has ever said the manager shouldn't be in charge of the playing side?

 

A DOF is there to run everything else, I see you've mentioned Arsenal in that when Wenger was talking a few months back about how he needs a DOF now David Dein had left, Liverpool also have Parry who's clued up about the football side of things.

 

A manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, other things like youth development and scouting of young players around the World should be left to someone else who is independent of the manager.

 

Football has become too big of a business now to have one man try to do everything when the first team is more than enough responsibility.

 

didn't Wenger say he would have no objections to having a DOF so long as he did what he told him to do ?

 

You can call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day they are or should be scouts and / or assistants to the manager of the football club, and that is their place, and that is what they are. And it is up to the manager who he wants as his assistants, how many people he wants, and what he wants them to do.

 

 

A manager already in employment would want to decide who to bring in, I fully understand that but for a manager like Wenger who many (including yourself) rate as the best manager out there shows how important the role is and how well it can work if used properly.

 

As I've said the manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, I'd love someone like Comolli to come here and take over the running of the youth academy and scouting from top to bottom though, it isn't ideal bringing someone in when a manager is already in place as some will feel that their toes are getting stepped on.

[NE5]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

 

Who has ever said the manager shouldn't be in charge of the playing side?

 

A DOF is there to run everything else, I see you've mentioned Arsenal in that when Wenger was talking a few months back about how he needs a DOF now David Dein had left, Liverpool also have Parry who's clued up about the football side of things.

 

A manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, other things like youth development and scouting of young players around the World should be left to someone else who is independent of the manager.

 

Football has become too big of a business now to have one man try to do everything when the first team is more than enough responsibility.

 

didn't Wenger say he would have no objections to having a DOF so long as he did what he told him to do ?

 

You can call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day they are or should be scouts and / or assistants to the manager of the football club, and that is their place, and that is what they are. And it is up to the manager who he wants as his assistants, how many people he wants, and what he wants them to do.

 

 

A manager already in employment would want to decide who to bring in, I fully understand that but for a manager like Wenger who many (including yourself) rate as the best manager out there shows how important the role is and how well it can work if used properly.

 

As I've said the manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, I'd love someone like Comolli to come here and take over the running of the youth academy and scouting from top to bottom though, it isn't ideal bringing someone in when a manager is already in place as some will feel that their toes are getting stepped on.

 

I added to the last post. I don't particularly want this Commolli to come into Newcastle unless Allardyce chooses him. I would be very unhappy with the club if they chose the managers assistants for him.

 

If a club changes a manager, or when a club changes a manager, he will bring in his own staff or keep someone if he sees someone doing a good job. Both Gullit and Bobby Robson kept and promoted Carver from the youth team to the reserves to the first team, so they must have thought he was doing a good job, this kept stability within the club and showed that these managers were open minded and made their own judgements. This is how it must be, you can't bring in managers and expect them to take the blame for failure, or succeed while working with people they don't particularly want as their staff.

 

I don't think its the system that works at all, I think its about having the right people.

 

 

[Baggio]

Edit: I understand the role that Parry, Kenyon and Gill do at their clubs ie the day to day running of the club, every club has someone doing this job, but you don't have to be clued up about football to do that and I bet the managers of all these clubs would not tolerate them sticking their nose into how he runs his team.

 

You have mentioned Spuds a lot and this way of doing things. Isn't it true that both George Graham and Glenn Hoddle had problems with David Pleat who was employed to be a "DOF" ?

 

I'm not sure they had problems with him but if they did and I'll take your word for that then that would be the downside, then again how many managers express problems with the chairman after leaving?

 

The fact is no system is guaranteed to work every time and people like Pleat and Keegan who don't really have a clue about youth development and scouting young players are the problems when they are given jobs because of who they are rather than what they can bring to the table.

 

Martin Jol posted on here about having seen the best of both set ups with getting a good one like Comolli and someone who's clueless like Pleat.

[NE5]

Edit: I understand the role that Parry, Kenyon and Gill do at their clubs ie the day to day running of the club, every club has someone doing this job, but you don't have to be clued up about football to do that and I bet the managers of all these clubs would not tolerate them sticking their nose into how he runs his team.

 

You have mentioned Spuds a lot and this way of doing things. Isn't it true that both George Graham and Glenn Hoddle had problems with David Pleat who was employed to be a "DOF" ?

 

I'm not sure they had problems with him but if they did and I'll take your word for that then that would be the downside, then again how many managers express problems with the chairman after leaving?

 

The fact is no system is guaranteed to work every time and people like Pleat and Keegan who don't really have a clue about youth development and scouting young players are the problems when they are given jobs because of who they are rather than what they can bring to the table.

 

Martin Jol posted on here about having seen the best of both set ups with getting a good one like Comolli and someone who's clueless like Pleat.

 

I wouldn't say Pleat is clueless, he just waffles on about a load of bollocks, and I bet was a right pain in the arse

 

What you need is a scouting system with some good scouts and a good youth team coach/manager. Why should you need a DOF to organise this ?

 

Comolli is apparently getting the blame for Spurs current position, and Jol wasn't happy with some of the players he was responsible for signing for Spurs. Now, I think that is a situation that I would not want at Newcastle, and any manager worth his salt would not tolerate it.

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

 

Who has ever said the manager shouldn't be in charge of the playing side?

 

A DOF is there to run everything else, I see you've mentioned Arsenal in that when Wenger was talking a few months back about how he needs a DOF now David Dein had left, Liverpool also have Parry who's clued up about the football side of things.

 

A manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, other things like youth development and scouting of young players around the World should be left to someone else who is independent of the manager.

 

Football has become too big of a business now to have one man try to do everything when the first team is more than enough responsibility.

 

didn't Wenger say he would have no objections to having a DOF so long as he did what he told him to do ?

 

You can call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day they are or should be scouts and / or assistants to the manager of the football club, and that is their place, and that is what they are. And it is up to the manager who he wants as his assistants, how many people he wants, and what he wants them to do.

 

 

A manager already in employment would want to decide who to bring in, I fully understand that but for a manager like Wenger who many (including yourself) rate as the best manager out there shows how important the role is and how well it can work if used properly.

 

As I've said the manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, I'd love someone like Comolli to come here and take over the running of the youth academy and scouting from top to bottom though, it isn't ideal bringing someone in when a manager is already in place as some will feel that their toes are getting stepped on.

 

I added to the last post. I don't particularly want this Commolli to come into Newcastle unless Allardyce chooses him. I would be very unhappy with the club if they chose the managers assistants for him.

 

If a club changes a manager, or when a club changes a manager, he will bring in his own staff or keep someone if he sees someone doing a good job. Both Gullit and Bobby Robson kept and promoted Carver from the youth team to the reserves to the first team, so they must have thought he was doing a good job, this kept stability within the club and showed that these managers were open minded and made their own judgements. This is how it must be, you can't bring in managers and expect them to take the blame for failure, or succeed while working with people they don't particularly want as their staff.

 

I don't think its the system that works at all, I think its about having the right people.

 

 

 

But why should people in charge of the youth academy have anything to do with the first team manager?

 

The point all along is that both things should be kept separate, look at Barcelona for how having a director of football has worked in regards to youth development, they have brought through some of the best young players around from all over the World but this has nothing to do with Rijkaard and it shouldn't have anything to do with him either.

 

The manager should be in charge of running of the first team and nothing else, if he leaves for whatever reason then of course the new manager should bring his own men in to help him with the first team however the youth team coaches, scouts etc should remain untouched as it is with many of the big clubs throughout Europe.

[Baggio]

Edit: I understand the role that Parry, Kenyon and Gill do at their clubs ie the day to day running of the club, every club has someone doing this job, but you don't have to be clued up about football to do that and I bet the managers of all these clubs would not tolerate them sticking their nose into how he runs his team.

 

You have mentioned Spuds a lot and this way of doing things. Isn't it true that both George Graham and Glenn Hoddle had problems with David Pleat who was employed to be a "DOF" ?

 

I'm not sure they had problems with him but if they did and I'll take your word for that then that would be the downside, then again how many managers express problems with the chairman after leaving?

 

The fact is no system is guaranteed to work every time and people like Pleat and Keegan who don't really have a clue about youth development and scouting young players are the problems when they are given jobs because of who they are rather than what they can bring to the table.

 

Martin Jol posted on here about having seen the best of both set ups with getting a good one like Comolli and someone who's clueless like Pleat.

 

I wouldn't say Pleat is clueless, he just waffles on about a load of bollocks, and I bet was a right pain in the arse

 

What you need is a scouting system with some good scouts and a good youth team coach/manager. Why should you need a DOF to organise this ?

 

Comolli is apparently getting the blame for Spurs current position, and Jol wasn't happy with some of the players he was responsible for signing for Spurs. Now, I think that is a situation that I would not want at Newcastle, and any manager worth his salt would not tolerate it.

 

 

 

 

 

Who does the youth coaches, scouts etc answer too? The manager of the first team?

 

As I've said countless times both should be kept separate and the first team manager should concentrate on the first team and nothing else, why not have someone who runs the other side of the club who can devote all of his time to youth development, handling player contracts etc?

 

I'm not sure how Comolli is getting the blame for Spurs place at the moment, you've said yourself that the first team manager is responsible for the first team in terms of results, all Comolli has done is look to replace an average manager in Jol with a far better one in Ramos, getting rumbled tapping him up is hardly ideal but if it benefits the club in the long run then who will care.

[NE5]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

 

Who has ever said the manager shouldn't be in charge of the playing side?

 

A DOF is there to run everything else, I see you've mentioned Arsenal in that when Wenger was talking a few months back about how he needs a DOF now David Dein had left, Liverpool also have Parry who's clued up about the football side of things.

 

A manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, other things like youth development and scouting of young players around the World should be left to someone else who is independent of the manager.

 

Football has become too big of a business now to have one man try to do everything when the first team is more than enough responsibility.

 

didn't Wenger say he would have no objections to having a DOF so long as he did what he told him to do ?

 

You can call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day they are or should be scouts and / or assistants to the manager of the football club, and that is their place, and that is what they are. And it is up to the manager who he wants as his assistants, how many people he wants, and what he wants them to do.

 

 

A manager already in employment would want to decide who to bring in, I fully understand that but for a manager like Wenger who many (including yourself) rate as the best manager out there shows how important the role is and how well it can work if used properly.

 

As I've said the manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, I'd love someone like Comolli to come here and take over the running of the youth academy and scouting from top to bottom though, it isn't ideal bringing someone in when a manager is already in place as some will feel that their toes are getting stepped on.

 

I added to the last post. I don't particularly want this Commolli to come into Newcastle unless Allardyce chooses him. I would be very unhappy with the club if they chose the managers assistants for him.

 

If a club changes a manager, or when a club changes a manager, he will bring in his own staff or keep someone if he sees someone doing a good job. Both Gullit and Bobby Robson kept and promoted Carver from the youth team to the reserves to the first team, so they must have thought he was doing a good job, this kept stability within the club and showed that these managers were open minded and made their own judgements. This is how it must be, you can't bring in managers and expect them to take the blame for failure, or succeed while working with people they don't particularly want as their staff.

 

I don't think its the system that works at all, I think its about having the right people.

 

 

 

But why should people in charge of the youth academy have anything to do with the first team manager?

 

The point all along is that both things should be kept separate, look at Barcelona for how having a director of football has worked in regards to youth development, they have brought through some of the best young players around from all over the World but this has nothing to do with Rijkaard and it shouldn't have anything to do with him either.

 

The manager should be in charge of running of the first team and nothing else, if he leaves for whatever reason then of course the new manager should bring his own men in to help him with the first team however the youth team coaches, scouts etc should remain untouched as it is with many of the big clubs throughout Europe.

 

But you are still talking about having the right person, whatever the system ? If the person running the youth system isn't right then it isn't the system thats failing, its the people ?

 

This is all it is. Its a youth setup. Everybody has one. We had one up until the 1990's. It wasn't a great success, but we found the occasional gem. Newcastle's youth setup has NEVER been a good one, and yes I am all in favour of us putting it in better order. This is all what you say boils down to in the end, there is simply no need for someone with this fancy title, its just a youth policy. And if the quality of the young players isn't good enough, then the manager of the club would - having a sounder knowledge of football - replace him with someone else ?

 

 

[Baggio]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

 

Who has ever said the manager shouldn't be in charge of the playing side?

 

A DOF is there to run everything else, I see you've mentioned Arsenal in that when Wenger was talking a few months back about how he needs a DOF now David Dein had left, Liverpool also have Parry who's clued up about the football side of things.

 

A manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, other things like youth development and scouting of young players around the World should be left to someone else who is independent of the manager.

 

Football has become too big of a business now to have one man try to do everything when the first team is more than enough responsibility.

 

didn't Wenger say he would have no objections to having a DOF so long as he did what he told him to do ?

 

You can call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day they are or should be scouts and / or assistants to the manager of the football club, and that is their place, and that is what they are. And it is up to the manager who he wants as his assistants, how many people he wants, and what he wants them to do.

 

 

A manager already in employment would want to decide who to bring in, I fully understand that but for a manager like Wenger who many (including yourself) rate as the best manager out there shows how important the role is and how well it can work if used properly.

 

As I've said the manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, I'd love someone like Comolli to come here and take over the running of the youth academy and scouting from top to bottom though, it isn't ideal bringing someone in when a manager is already in place as some will feel that their toes are getting stepped on.

 

I added to the last post. I don't particularly want this Commolli to come into Newcastle unless Allardyce chooses him. I would be very unhappy with the club if they chose the managers assistants for him.

 

If a club changes a manager, or when a club changes a manager, he will bring in his own staff or keep someone if he sees someone doing a good job. Both Gullit and Bobby Robson kept and promoted Carver from the youth team to the reserves to the first team, so they must have thought he was doing a good job, this kept stability within the club and showed that these managers were open minded and made their own judgements. This is how it must be, you can't bring in managers and expect them to take the blame for failure, or succeed while working with people they don't particularly want as their staff.

 

I don't think its the system that works at all, I think its about having the right people.

 

 

 

But why should people in charge of the youth academy have anything to do with the first team manager?

 

The point all along is that both things should be kept separate, look at Barcelona for how having a director of football has worked in regards to youth development, they have brought through some of the best young players around from all over the World but this has nothing to do with Rijkaard and it shouldn't have anything to do with him either.

 

The manager should be in charge of running of the first team and nothing else, if he leaves for whatever reason then of course the new manager should bring his own men in to help him with the first team however the youth team coaches, scouts etc should remain untouched as it is with many of the big clubs throughout Europe.

 

But you are still talking about having the right person, whatever the system ? If the person running the youth system isn't right then it isn't the system thats failing, its the people ?

 

This is all it is. Its a youth setup. Everybody has one. We had one up until the 1990's. It wasn't a great success, but we found the occasional gem. Newcastle's youth setup has NEVER been a good one, and yes I am all in favour of us putting it in better order. This is all what you say boils down to in the end, there is simply no need for someone with this fancy title, its just a youth policy. And if the quality of the young players isn't good enough, then the manager of the club would - having a sounder knowledge of football - replace him with someone else ?

 

 

 

So you agree with the set up but don't like the fancy title?

 

Our youth system has been shit for years, wouldn't it be better for us to have someone to give it a massive overhaul and drag it up somewhere near Arsenals? Have someone to just completely run that side of the club rather than have Allardyce try to bring this together and run all aspects of the first team?

 

I think people are more put off with the job title rather than the job that's getting done.

[NE5]

Edit: I understand the role that Parry, Kenyon and Gill do at their clubs ie the day to day running of the club, every club has someone doing this job, but you don't have to be clued up about football to do that and I bet the managers of all these clubs would not tolerate them sticking their nose into how he runs his team.

 

You have mentioned Spuds a lot and this way of doing things. Isn't it true that both George Graham and Glenn Hoddle had problems with David Pleat who was employed to be a "DOF" ?

 

I'm not sure they had problems with him but if they did and I'll take your word for that then that would be the downside, then again how many managers express problems with the chairman after leaving?

 

The fact is no system is guaranteed to work every time and people like Pleat and Keegan who don't really have a clue about youth development and scouting young players are the problems when they are given jobs because of who they are rather than what they can bring to the table.

 

Martin Jol posted on here about having seen the best of both set ups with getting a good one like Comolli and someone who's clueless like Pleat.

 

I wouldn't say Pleat is clueless, he just waffles on about a load of bollocks, and I bet was a right pain in the arse

 

What you need is a scouting system with some good scouts and a good youth team coach/manager. Why should you need a DOF to organise this ?

 

Comolli is apparently getting the blame for Spurs current position, and Jol wasn't happy with some of the players he was responsible for signing for Spurs. Now, I think that is a situation that I would not want at Newcastle, and any manager worth his salt would not tolerate it.

 

 

 

 

 

Who does the youth coaches, scouts etc answer too? The manager of the first team?

 

As I've said countless times both should be kept separate and the first team manager should concentrate on the first team and nothing else, why not have someone who runs the other side of the club who can devote all of his time to youth development, handling player contracts etc?

 

I'm not sure how Comolli is getting the blame for Spurs place at the moment, you've said yourself that the first team manager is responsible for the first team in terms of results, all Comolli has done is look to replace an average manager in Jol with a far better one in Ramos , getting rumbled tapping him up is hardly ideal but if it benefits the club in the long run then who will care.

 

If someone like MartinJol says this is wrong, fair enough, I read it but he is closer to it than me. Jol apparently conceded to allow Commolli a say or even choose the players to buy, Jol has told Levy that too many of the latest ones aren't good enough and he wasn't happy.

 

Ref your comment above - I think it is deeply disturbing to have a person who buys the players deciding when to sack the manager he buys players for and who to replace him with, and call him a DOF. Who is he accountable to ? Will the directors fire him ? I think he should be the person to get the bullet, not Jol, if this is correct.

 

 

[NE5]

Didn't you start a similar thread a few months ago, Parky?

 

The DOF is used by the biggest clubs in the World and has proven to work, it's simple pointing to a few cases where it's came up against problems to say it's a failure, the same could be said about people like Shepherd and Romanov not having much of a clue about football and how the club would have benefited with someone with inside knowledge of the football side of things to guide them with the running of the club.

 

the vast majority of chairman don't have much idea about football.

 

ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal being 3 prime examples in England.

 

Doesn't mean you need a DOF though. What they have is managers who are in charge of the playing side of their own clubs.

 

 

 

Who has ever said the manager shouldn't be in charge of the playing side?

 

A DOF is there to run everything else, I see you've mentioned Arsenal in that when Wenger was talking a few months back about how he needs a DOF now David Dein had left, Liverpool also have Parry who's clued up about the football side of things.

 

A manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, other things like youth development and scouting of young players around the World should be left to someone else who is independent of the manager.

 

Football has become too big of a business now to have one man try to do everything when the first team is more than enough responsibility.

 

didn't Wenger say he would have no objections to having a DOF so long as he did what he told him to do ?

 

You can call them whatever you like, but at the end of the day they are or should be scouts and / or assistants to the manager of the football club, and that is their place, and that is what they are. And it is up to the manager who he wants as his assistants, how many people he wants, and what he wants them to do.

 

 

A manager already in employment would want to decide who to bring in, I fully understand that but for a manager like Wenger who many (including yourself) rate as the best manager out there shows how important the role is and how well it can work if used properly.

 

As I've said the manager should be in charge of the first team and nothing else, I'd love someone like Comolli to come here and take over the running of the youth academy and scouting from top to bottom though, it isn't ideal bringing someone in when a manager is already in place as some will feel that their toes are getting stepped on.

 

I added to the last post. I don't particularly want this Commolli to come into Newcastle unless Allardyce chooses him. I would be very unhappy with the club if they chose the managers assistants for him.

 

If a club changes a manager, or when a club changes a manager, he will bring in his own staff or keep someone if he sees someone doing a good job. Both Gullit and Bobby Robson kept and promoted Carver from the youth team to the reserves to the first team, so they must have thought he was doing a good job, this kept stability within the club and showed that these managers were open minded and made their own judgements. This is how it must be, you can't bring in managers and expect them to take the blame for failure, or succeed while working with people they don't particularly want as their staff.

 

I don't think its the system that works at all, I think its about having the right people.

 

 

 

But why should people in charge of the youth academy have anything to do with the first team manager?

 

The point all along is that both things should be kept separate, look at Barcelona for how having a director of football has worked in regards to youth development, they have brought through some of the best young players around from all over the World but this has nothing to do with Rijkaard and it shouldn't have anything to do with him either.

 

The manager should be in charge of running of the first team and nothing else, if he leaves for whatever reason then of course the new manager should bring his own men in to help him with the first team however the youth team coaches, scouts etc should remain untouched as it is with many of the big clubs throughout Europe.

 

But you are still talking about having the right person, whatever the system ? If the person running the youth system isn't right then it isn't the system thats failing, its the people ?

 

This is all it is. Its a youth setup. Everybody has one. We had one up until the 1990's. It wasn't a great success, but we found the occasional gem. Newcastle's youth setup has NEVER been a good one, and yes I am all in favour of us putting it in better order. This is all what you say boils down to in the end, there is simply no need for someone with this fancy title, its just a youth policy. And if the quality of the young players isn't good enough, then the manager of the club would - having a sounder knowledge of football - replace him with someone else ?

 

 

 

So you agree with the set up but don't like the fancy title?

 

Our youth system has been shit for years, wouldn't it be better for us to have someone to give it a massive overhaul and drag it up somewhere near Arsenals? Have someone to just completely run that side of the club rather than have Allardyce try to bring this together and run all aspects of the first team?

 

I think people are more put off with the job title rather than the job that's getting done.

 

No. I would like a good youth setup, who wouldn't, but I don't see how it extends beyond that. As i said, if the quality of the youngsters coming through aren't good enough, what good is the system, and who takes the decision to make change ?

 

If you want your manager to be successful and stay for a long time, then surely you must leave it to him to view it and take action ?

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

Edit: I understand the role that Parry, Kenyon and Gill do at their clubs ie the day to day running of the club, every club has someone doing this job, but you don't have to be clued up about football to do that and I bet the managers of all these clubs would not tolerate them sticking their nose into how he runs his team.

 

You have mentioned Spuds a lot and this way of doing things. Isn't it true that both George Graham and Glenn Hoddle had problems with David Pleat who was employed to be a "DOF" ?

 

I'm not sure they had problems with him but if they did and I'll take your word for that then that would be the downside, then again how many managers express problems with the chairman after leaving?

 

The fact is no system is guaranteed to work every time and people like Pleat and Keegan who don't really have a clue about youth development and scouting young players are the problems when they are given jobs because of who they are rather than what they can bring to the table.

 

Martin Jol posted on here about having seen the best of both set ups with getting a good one like Comolli and someone who's clueless like Pleat.

 

I wouldn't say Pleat is clueless, he just waffles on about a load of bollocks, and I bet was a right pain in the arse

 

What you need is a scouting system with some good scouts and a good youth team coach/manager. Why should you need a DOF to organise this ?

 

Comolli is apparently getting the blame for Spurs current position, and Jol wasn't happy with some of the players he was responsible for signing for Spurs. Now, I think that is a situation that I would not want at Newcastle, and any manager worth his salt would not tolerate it.

 

 

 

 

 

Who does the youth coaches, scouts etc answer too? The manager of the first team?

 

As I've said countless times both should be kept separate and the first team manager should concentrate on the first team and nothing else, why not have someone who runs the other side of the club who can devote all of his time to youth development, handling player contracts etc?

 

I'm not sure how Comolli is getting the blame for Spurs place at the moment, you've said yourself that the first team manager is responsible for the first team in terms of results, all Comolli has done is look to replace an average manager in Jol with a far better one in Ramos , getting rumbled tapping him up is hardly ideal but if it benefits the club in the long run then who will care.

 

If someone like MartinJol says this is wrong, fair enough, I read it but he is closer to it than me. Jol apparently conceded to allow Commolli a say or even choose the players to buy, Jol has told Levy that too many of the latest ones aren't good enough and he wasn't happy.

 

Ref your comment above - I think it is deeply disturbing to have a person who buys the players deciding when to sack the manager he buys players for and who to replace him with, and call him a DOF. Who is he accountable to ? Will the directors fire him ? I think he should be the person to get the bullet, not Jol, if this is correct.

 

 

 

Martin Jol took the job under those circumstances so it's abit late too complain about them now, I'm not a fan of having someone else decide who to buy but it did work for Spurs in the beginning transforming them from an average side into a top 5 team on a limited budget, I wouldn't want to work under those circumstances and I don't know of any other clubs that have a DOF work that way either so don't think of it as the blueprint of how it has to work.

 

The DOF would answer to the chairman so it's up to him if he fires him or not.

 

We're going around in circles with this so I'll knock this one on the head.

[Martin Lol]

Damien Comolli is for me the main reason Jol is out of a job at Spurs and the schemer behind the disgraceful handling of a manager who delivered 5th in the PL and almost got them into the CL recently. Comolli was behind the campaign for Ramos and has been chasing him ever since the summer when apparently Spurs directors were 'dissapointed' with Spurs 5th place which says a lot more about them than Jol. Comolli has wanted a man who can fit into the Spurs continental DOF set up and he has also wanted more control something which Jol hasn't been happy with and fought allegedly. It is no surprise to me that Jol has sought advice from the LMA.

 

Avram Grant is another of this type. A manager with paper thin CV has imo cajoled and schemed his way into Chelsea and also imo been whispering in dark corners agains Mourinho (great CV one of the best managers in the game). How the f*** did one of the best managers in the world lose his job and this strange character with hardly any football experience outside of Israel wind up as Chelsea manager?

 

Happy Harry has already come up against two of them almost as if they were stalking him, firstly Velimir Zajec at Pompey, then Sir Clive Woodward from the world of Rugby at Southampton...Happily Harry has outlived them both, perhaps his London bred infighting skills made the differance.

DOF's are there to take the pressure off the manager and handle the day to day stuff that affects the side and be a strong influence in long term development which would include player purchuses.

 

 

Thus far they just look like scheming c***s to me. When Ramos fails I'd like to see Comolli walk as well, but somehow I doubt it.

 

 

I would be against a DOF system at Newcastle unless expressly chosen and desired by Allardyce.

 

Comolli wasn't the schemer that got the manager the sack, Martin Jol wasn't the manager, he was the Head Coach.  Jol joined as the Assistant Coach to Santini, Jol was appointed by the then DoF Frank Arnesen, who then promptly manoeuvred Santini out of the club to get his preferred coach in pole position.  Jol was happy to reap the benefits then, less so when the ball was on the other foot.  Comolli and Jol have had numerous arguments about the direction the club should take.  Jol was adamant that progress would be through a nucleus of 5 or 6 players who get selected each week irrespective of how well they were playing individually, Comolli believes that individual form is paramount to team selection.

 

I'm not saying that one is always right and the other is always wrong, it's a lot less black and white like that, but I strongly believe that to have half the team picked irrespective of how well they are playing is niaive to say the least.  There's no incentive to put in the effort if you're getting picked for the next match anyway.  I'm intrigued to know what team Clive Allen will select as I know privately he has questioned Jol's team strategy at times.

 

More importantly, Jol was always seen as an Arnesen signing who did not wish to buy into Comolli's overall plan.  Comolli's vision of 2 strong central defensive MF is more in keeping with Wenger's strategy as is the idea of 2 wide players also.  The recommendation of Ramos was initially very much Comolli's so if he does take the job, Ramos will be very much Comolli's man rather than Arnesen's.  Comolli's role and ability will be better judged when the coach and the DoF share the same values.  I still see no reason why the DoF concept which is almost universally used across the Continent to good effect should fail to be successful here.  If people want it to be successful, I fervently believe it can be.