Martin Jol was interviewed in 2006

[GG]

They said hes an average manager good motivator, but was only really there because he was a media darling.

 

Who, Redknapp?

[Guest Heneage]

Haha scarily true really, I don't rate him at all, this whole "Wheeler dealer" is bullshite, hes terrible with money.

[OzzieMandias]

Jol would be nothing without a Director of Football pulling the transfer strings.

 

Can open. Worms everywhere.

 

I found this interesting:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/30/tottenhamhotspur-premierleague

 

Spurs' decision to give Comolli's responsibilities to their new manager, Harry Redknapp, has been hailed as proof that American-style structures have no place in English football. In fact, the opposite is true. The clubs that are most successful in English football are those that have embraced continuity, that have sensibly divided up managerial responsibilities between individuals, that have refused to squander vast sums of money on replacing one manager, and his entourage, with another.

 

Success leads to continuity far more than continuity leads to success.

 

 

 

But we can surely agree that sacking the manager and the entire management structure a few games into every season is going to be bad for business?

 

Better to sack a manager who is clearly failing and showing no sign of knowing how to turn the situation around than to stick with him for the sake of continuity.

 

Even the best looking appointments on the face of it can fail for reasons we can't really fathom. I don't think there were many who thought Ramos was a bad appointment for Spurs (the reason most of our alleged targets ended up at Spurs was because of Ramos and how well they were going to do according to some). So should Spurs have stuck with him? We can't say for sure what would have happened had he stayed, but it didn't look like anything was going to change anytime soon with him in charge, and Spurs could easily have found themselves in a position from which they couldn't recover.

 

Of course those who use hindsight to judge decisions made in the past would probably say Ramos was a bad appointment from the start.

 

He wasn't a successful appointment, that much can obviously be said.

[Mowen]

Jol would be nothing without a Director of Football pulling the transfer strings.

 

Can open. Worms everywhere.

 

I found this interesting:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/30/tottenhamhotspur-premierleague

 

Spurs' decision to give Comolli's responsibilities to their new manager, Harry Redknapp, has been hailed as proof that American-style structures have no place in English football. In fact, the opposite is true. The clubs that are most successful in English football are those that have embraced continuity, that have sensibly divided up managerial responsibilities between individuals, that have refused to squander vast sums of money on replacing one manager, and his entourage, with another.

 

Success leads to continuity far more than continuity leads to success.

 

 

 

But we can surely agree that sacking the manager and the entire management structure a few games into every season is going to be bad for business?

 

Better to sack a manager who is clearly failing and showing no sign of knowing how to turn the situation around than to stick with him for the sake of continuity.

 

Even the best looking appointments on the face of it can fail for reasons we can't really fathom. I don't think there were many who thought Ramos was a bad appointment for Spurs (the reason most of our alleged targets ended up at Spurs was because of Ramos and how well they were going to do according to some). So should Spurs have stuck with him? We can't say for sure what would have happened had he stayed, but it didn't look like anything was going to change anytime soon with him in charge, and Spurs could easily have found themselves in a position from which they couldn't recover.

 

Of course those who use hindsight to judge decisions made in the past would probably say Ramos was a bad appointment from the start.

 

I think that's a very fair summary, and not an altogether situation as we had with Dalgleish and, to a lesser extent Fat Sam, both of whom looked to be tidy appointments at the time, but failed fairly spectacularly given time. Sometimes some people just don't fit within a club.

[OzzieMandias]

Can't find the link right now, but in one of the broadsheets earlier this week was a story suggesting that no one in Spain was surprised that Ramos had failed, as it was clear to everyone that his success at Valencia was largely due to their being a very good DOF.

[Offshore]

Can't find the link right now, but in one of the broadsheets earlier this week was a story suggesting that no one in Spain was surprised that Ramos had failed, as it was clear to everyone that his success at Valencia was largely due to their being a very good DOF.

 

Read that too, also that he hadn't been sacked earlier.

[Mowen]

Can't find the link right now, but in one of the broadsheets earlier this week was a story suggesting that no one in Spain was surprised that Ramos had failed, as it was clear to everyone that his success at Valencia was largely due to their being a very good DOF.

 

What about his success at Sevilla?

[OzzieMandias]

Well spotted, yes, sorry, Sevilla.

[Mowen]

Well spotted, yes, sorry, Sevilla.

 

That's alright, mate

[OzzieMandias]

Well spotted, yes, sorry, Sevilla.

 

That's alright, mate

 

Nee problem, pal!

[Ronaldo]

top manager Jol, shame we didn't get him then

[Liam Liam Liam O]

They mention continuity in an article promoting a system that fails spectacularly on that front. Strange.

 

The problem is the individuals involved.

 

Look at Man Utd, they have the ultimate Director of Football in Alex Ferguson, he picks and chooses who he wants in the key positions and then strategically runs the club.

 

He will be involved in appointing his successor and said successor will be integrated into the club fabric before Fergie says his final goodbye.

 

Where Spurs and we went wrong was appointing a DoF with no real history in football in terms of the directives of the role they were fulfilling. Its no surprise that when you have a DoF like Comolli dictating the role to a manger such as Jol or Ramos who have more experience than the DoF could dream of that it would fail.

 

Now put SBR (five years ago) in a DoF role above someone like Shearer or even Keegan then it may well of worked.

 

Same in any job, you would not appoint me (a 28 yr old) in a position where I get to dictate to a 50 year old MD what he is to do

 

Excellent post.

[Kanji]

They mention continuity in an article promoting a system that fails spectacularly on that front. Strange.

 

The problem is the individuals involved.

 

Look at Man Utd, they have the ultimate Director of Football in Alex Ferguson, he picks and chooses who he wants in the key positions and then strategically runs the club.

 

He will be involved in appointing his successor and said successor will be integrated into the club fabric before Fergie says his final goodbye.

 

Where Spurs and we went wrong was appointing a DoF with no real history in football in terms of the directives of the role they were fulfilling. Its no surprise that when you have a DoF like Comolli dictating the role to a manger such as Jol or Ramos who have more experience than the DoF could dream of that it would fail.

 

Now put SBR (five years ago) in a DoF role above someone like Shearer or even Keegan then it may well of worked.

 

Same in any job, you would not appoint me (a 28 yr old) in a position where I get to dictate to a 50 year old MD what he is to do

 

Excellent post.

 

There are load of jobs out there where the younger is in charge of some older ones. Look at many accounting/fnancial industries....It all depends on the working relationship, synergy, philosophy...w/e the f**k you want to call it.