Sporting Director / Director of Football

[Miggys First Goal]

Who’s next on the list?

[toontownman]

The big 6 to our future plans and shortlists...

[lovejoy]

They're taking Bournemouth's chief scout as well.

 

the meltdown on here had we done similar ?

 

 

[r0cafella]

9 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

They're taking Bournemouth's chief scout as well.

 

the meltdown on here had we done similar ?

 

 

Speaking for myself, I just want separation between manager and Sporting director. It’s certainly nothing personal with Richard Hughes. 
 

for me, it’s important the sporting director is in charge of the long term strategy and that includes managerial appointments old boys networks and nepotism and things I’d like to see us avoid. 
 

Given media reporting (of course impossible to verify and know if it’s true) but the manager already has more sway over things than I’d like. 
 

Just my views. 

[SUPERTOON]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Speaking for myself, I just want separation between manager and Sporting director. It’s certainly nothing personal with Richard Hughes. 
 

for me, it’s important the sporting director is in charge of the long term strategy and that includes managerial appointments old boys networks and nepotism and things I’d like to see us avoid. 
 

Given media reporting (of course impossible to verify and know if it’s true) but the manager already has more sway over things than I’d like. 
 

Just my views. 

What does Howe have sway over now that you don’t think he should? Not having a dig I just haven’t seen any reports.

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

What does Howe have sway over now that you don’t think he should? Not having a dig I just haven’t seen any reports.

From the reporting he’s very influential over the uk members of the board and has a very large say in our transfer business 

[Gallowgate Toon]

There's focus on DoFs setting sporting direction and identities above a manager but that's also a risk imo. What if what they're setting is rubbish? You've spent 5 years building a crap vision which is very expensive to rip up and/or hard to shift.

 

[Paully]

Apparently Eddie was going to take Hughes etc to Celtic so I'm surprised they didn't end up here?

[GEFAFWISP]

24 minutes ago, Paully said:

Apparently Eddie was going to take Hughes etc to Celtic so I'm surprised they didn't end up here?

No point hiring him as Saudis are ready to bin Howe for Mourinho in the summer.

[Geordie Ahmed]

54 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

From the reporting he’s very influential over the uk members of the board and has a very large say in our transfer business 

 

He should have a very large say in transfer business but he shouldn't have the only say, and there is no suggestion that is the case

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

He should have a very large say in transfer business but he shouldn't have the only say, and there is no suggestion that is the case

I prefer a system whereby the club has a Philosophy of its own, a distinct playing style which we fit everything else around.

 

A bit difficult because we obviously got the manager first, either way hopefully we things turn out the way we hope. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

7 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I prefer a system whereby the club has a Philosophy of its own, a distinct playing style which we fit everything else around.

 

A bit difficult because we obviously got the manager first, either way hopefully we things turn out the way we hope. 

 

Is there any club that operates in such a way where signings are done irrespective of the manager/coach? Not sure one exists

 

What you say sounds ideal but in practical terms it doesn't really work

 

I think the sensible approach is the one Ashworth spoke about, the traffic light system, where head of scout, sporting director and manager all have to give the green light for a transfer to go ahead

 

That way you can maintain a distinct playing style and also the manager doesn't have a player given to him he has no interest in

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

Is there any club that operates in such a way where signings are done irrespective of the manager/coach? Not sure one exists

 

What you say sounds ideal but in practical terms it doesn't really work

 

I think the sensible approach is the one Ashworth spoke about, the traffic light system, where head of scout, sporting director and manager all have to give the green light for a transfer to go ahead

 

That way you can maintain a distinct playing style and also the manager doesn't have a player given to him he has no interest in

Maybe not black and white but most top clubs operate similar to that.  
 

It was Edwards that wanted Salah and Klopp preferred a German lad Brandt maybe. Klopp did eventually agree but Salah wasn’t his preference or choice. In recent seasons Klopp has had a stronger role in player transfers.  
 

Spurs, Chelsea (Roman era), Real Madrid, Brighton, Brentford - the managers don’t have huge influence in who is signed for the first team.  
 

I remember Brentford got rid of a manager because he didn’t want to buy-in to the data led approach.  
 

I think Howe needs influence. Otherwise you get players signed and not used. But the level of influence needs to be managed. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

57 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Maybe not black and white but most top clubs operate similar to that.  
 

It was Edwards that wanted Salah and Klopp preferred a German lad Brandt maybe. Klopp did eventually agree but Salah wasn’t his preference or choice. In recent seasons Klopp has had a stronger role in player transfers.  
 

Spurs, Chelsea (Roman era), Real Madrid, Brighton, Brentford - the managers don’t have huge influence in who is signed for the first team.  
 

I remember Brentford got rid of a manager because he didn’t want to buy-in to the data led approach.  
 

I think Howe needs influence. Otherwise you get players signed and not used. But the level of influence needs to be managed. 

Aware of the Salah situation)apparently Mane too) but that model is similar to what we have

 

If Klopp said no would Salah have been signed? Not a chance

[wormy]

It's sounds practically like what we have in place already, no? Howe gets a say but isn't in full control. Of course you want player recruitment departments to be in sync with the style of football the manager plays. Not every signing is going to be spot on to that as not every transfer works out 100% right but our recruitment could be on course for a pretty good hit rate unless we see significant long term issues with injuries/Tonali. 

 

I just don't get where this idea that Howe has/could get too much power has come from. Honestly waiting for a few years time when it's been decided that TRC's theory of Ashworth being 'forced' out of the club in an attempt from Eddie to consolidate his 'power' is treated as gospel. 

 

 

Edited March 21 by wormy

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Aware of the Salah situation)apparently Mane too) but that model is similar to what we have

 

If Klopp said no would Salah have been signed? Not a chance

No but level of influence matters.

 

If 2023 Klopp wanted a player and the current DOF or whoever filled in for Edwards (Klopp's mate apparently) preferred another player. They would go with Klopp's player.

[rgk_lfc]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

No but level of influence matters.

 

If 2023 Klopp wanted a player and the current DOF or whoever filled in for Edwards (Klopp's mate apparently) preferred another player. They would go with Klopp's player.

Klopp has been open about the fact that Salah was Edward's signing. 

 

The difference of opinion happened with contract renegotiation. Klopp wanted extensions for Hendo and Gini and Edward's didn't. 

 

On a different note, I read some of the suggestions that Howe wanted folks from Bournemouth as they were his mates. Irrespective of what you think about Howe, there are certain things we can agree upon. He is intelligent, talented, motivated, driven and absolutely wants to succeed. Why would such a person offer potentially the most important job after him in the organization to his mate amd not to the best available person?

[timeEd32]

1 hour ago, rgk_lfc said:

Klopp has been open about the fact that Salah was Edward's signing. 

 

The difference of opinion happened with contract renegotiation. Klopp wanted extensions for Hendo and Gini and Edward's didn't. 

 

On a different note, I read some of the suggestions that Howe wanted folks from Bournemouth as they were his mates. Irrespective of what you think about Howe, there are certain things we can agree upon. He is intelligent, talented, motivated, driven and absolutely wants to succeed. Why would such a person offer potentially the most important job after him in the organization to his mate amd not to the best available person?

 

The short version is because he has some flaws around squad management and a small preference for Premier League experience some have decided he's basically shit at everything and is desperately handing out jobs to friends and family.

[dcmk]

28 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

The short version is because he has some flaws around squad management and a small preference for Premier League experience some have decided he's basically shit at everything and is desperately handing out jobs to friends and family.

Yep, I think people are just bored of our season so they begin to be desperate for a change, any change, to bring some excitement into the place.

 

Any bad news, starting line up, injury is being leapt on and twisted into a way to bash Eddie and his methods.  Bit crazy when you consider we would very likely end up with Mourinho.

 

 

[r0cafella]

Basically, the manager should obviously advise what position he’s after and what attributes he’s looking for and of course the sporting director should take this into consideration. 
 

Ultimately for it to be successful the manager has to be fully on board with such a set up and the sporting director better have a clear idea of what’s required. 
 

The reason why it falls to the sporting director is because he’s responsible for implementing this across all levels of the club and hiring the next manager. 

[lovejoy]

18 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Speaking for myself, I just want separation between manager and Sporting director. It’s certainly nothing personal with Richard Hughes. 
 

for me, it’s important the sporting director is in charge of the long term strategy and that includes managerial appointments old boys networks and nepotism and things I’d like to see us avoid. 
 

Given media reporting (of course impossible to verify and know if it’s true) but the manager already has more sway over things than I’d like. 
 

Just my views. 

Would you have been happy if we’d appointed Michael Edwards?

[r0cafella]

17 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

Would you have been happy if we’d appointed Michael Edwards?

Michael Edwards reputation outstrips Richard Hughes at this point, it also outstrips the of Eddie Howe as well. 
 

At this stage leaving Liverpool when they desperately wanted to keep him and joining us after his small break would have represented a step up for us. Richard Hughes leaving Bournemouth for us would have been a step up for Hughes. 

[lovejoy]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Michael Edwards reputation outstrips Richard Hughes at this point, it also outstrips the of Eddie Howe as well. 
 

At this stage leaving Liverpool when they desperately wanted to keep him and joining us after his small break would have represented a step up for us. Richard Hughes leaving Bournemouth for us would have been a step up for Hughes. 

 

Edwards is also Howe’s mate though, so you wouldn’t have the separation?

 

I take the separation point, but Villa (early days) and Man City are proving that it isn’t as important as you suggest.

 

There’d have been major complaints on here had we appointed Hughes, ‘Bournemouth United’ and all that, he’s not ‘best in class’ etc etc.

 

Bottom line is we don’t know what best in class in this role is.

 

I think we’ll get it right and I also think Howe will get sacked if he doesn’t perform, and it makes no difference if the sporting director is his mate or not.

 

let’s just get the best person for the job, if he happens to be Howe’s mate, so be it.

 

That’s my take anyway.

 

 

[r0cafella]

11 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

 

Edwards is also Howe’s mate though, so you wouldn’t have the separation?

 

I take the separation point, but Villa (early days) and Man City are proving that it isn’t as important as you suggest.

 

There’d have been major complaints on here had we appointed Hughes, ‘Bournemouth United’ and all that, he’s not ‘best in class’ etc etc.

 

Bottom line is we don’t know what best in class in this role is.

 

I think we’ll get it right and I also think Howe will get sacked if he doesn’t perform, and it makes no difference if the sporting director is his mate or not.

 

let’s just get the best person for the job, if he happens to be Howe’s mate, so be it.

 

That’s my take anyway.

 

 

Yeah we don’t, so why gamble?

 

And yes, the degree of separation between Howe and Edwards wasn’t ideal but given we weren’t likely to get Edwards it’s a moot point, and Edwards own reputation would have carried him, he wouldn’t have needed Howe influence to get the job. 
 

When speaking of Monchi and the guy at city, it’s a bit different, Sevilla and Barca are not Bournemouth (with all due respect to Bournemouth) we are taking about serial winners and people who have achieved more than most. The same can’t be said for Richard Hughes. (Again no disrespect to him or his achievements). 
 

One of the things we are most lacking in is elite experience and this is a theme throughout all levels of the club, and as this season has shown it’s area which we have found wanting, we have copied well with an elite schedule. 
 

And we absolutely do need the best people, however I’m not sure the best person is Eddie’s friend. 

[lovejoy]

6 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Yeah we don’t, so why gamble?

 

And yes, the degree of separation between Howe and Edwards wasn’t ideal but given we weren’t likely to get Edwards it’s a moot point, and Edwards own reputation would have carried him, he wouldn’t have needed Howe influence to get the job. 
 

When speaking of Monchi and the guy at city, it’s a bit different, Sevilla and Barca are not Bournemouth (with all due respect to Bournemouth) we are taking about serial winners and people who have achieved more than most. The same can’t be said for Richard Hughes. (Again no disrespect to him or his achievements). 
 

One of the things we are most lacking in is elite experience and this is a theme throughout all levels of the club, and as this season has shown it’s area which we have found wanting, we have copied well with an elite schedule. 
 

And we absolutely do need the best people, however I’m not sure the best person is Eddie’s friend. 

 

So just to be clear, they can be mates and the separation isn't an issue if one of them has won something? ?

 

Edward's is Eddie's friend, and he's (supposedly) the best, so the two can co-exist.

 

Just get the best person for the job, we both definitely agree there. ??

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22 by lovejoy