Improving on a shoestring - Can it be done?

[Guest sittingontheball]

 

*Snip

 

The team for me could be like this:

                      Given

Solano, Moore, New CB, New LB

              Parker, Butt

                    Emre

        Dyer,  Martins, Owen

 

*Snip

 

 

As you say yourself, the emphasis would be on the full backs to get forward.  Solano's probably a bit old for that now though.  The situation is worsened because none of the three frontmen are especially good at pulling wide and crossing.  Not like Shearer or Bellamy, for example.  Dyer does it sometimes, but he's not very disciplined.

 

With a keeper, versatile defender, and Zog, Milner, and tall striker (Shola??) on the bench, your system might actually work.

 

New CB for captain too!

[ChezGiven]

 

*Snip

 

The team for me could be like this:

                      Given

Solano, Moore, New CB, New LB

              Parker, Butt

                    Emre

        Dyer,  Martins, Owen

 

*Snip

 

 

Sell Parker, Emre & Duff (plus the rest of the shite) and buy Baines, Davies & Bent to have (and get freebies in like Sidwell & scour the Championship for young talent):

 

                    Given

Solano, Taylor, Davies, Baines

              Butt, N'Zogbia

                    Dyer

        Owen,  Bent, Martins

 

Bit more attacking without Parker there, but i think a better balance and Dyer in for me his best position.

 

Still would like Solano replaced as i think he's slowing down and wont be able to keep up the job next season.

 

But in answer to the thread title, no. It cannot be done, there is too much to be done to do it on a shoestring budget, especially if we are to change the formation as well.

 

 

 

 

Then lower your expectations for next year then as we will still be in the same 'relative' position as now.

[Baggio]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

[Lotus]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

Sorry if this is a blinkered view but, doesn't the success of a 'DoF' system depend on the quality of the DoF?

If there a good enough DoF's out there then why hasn't everyone got one?

We will need to be lucky enough to find a good DoF and a good Manager?

I get your point though, a good DoF may even find us a good Manager!

Spurs found a good DoF and he was replaced by what seems like another good one (Commoli i believe).

I'm fairly happy for the club to remain in the hands of the present owners however i doubt their ability to 'scout' a good, upcoming manager, they'd have to be lucky. Therefore they'd have to equally as lucky with the DoF.

It doesn't appear to me that we have anyone at Board level who knows much about football or football people. The Board would have to recognise they're ignorant on that point first.

[Guest Knightrider]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing shite, how would the DOF get them out of it?

[ChezGiven]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

Sorry if this is a blinkered view but, doesn't the success of a 'DoF' system depend on the quality of the DoF?

If there a good enough DoF's out there then why hasn't everyone got one?

We will need to be lucky enough to find a good DoF and a good Manager?

I get your point though, a good DoF may even find us a good Manager!

Spurs found a good DoF and he was replaced by what seems like another good one (Commoli i believe).

I'm fairly happy for the club to remain in the hands of the present owners however i doubt their ability to 'scout' a good, upcoming manager, they'd have to be lucky. Therefore they'd have to equally as lucky with the DoF.

It doesn't appear to me that we have anyone at Board level who knows much about football or football people. The Board would have to recognise they're ignorant on that point first.

 

Its a fair point. Appointing the right DoF has got to be trickier than appointing a manager. There doesnt seem to be many of them so how do you assess their credentials?

[Baggio]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing s****, how would the DOF get them out of it?

 

He wouldn't, however when the under performing manager is replaced the new manager will walk into a club with a great squad and an excellent scouting network, btw wasn't it Arnesen that brought Jol in as a coach?

 

Football is too big to leave it all to one man now, there was a thread on here months ago on how many staff the big clubs employ compared to us, I'll try to dig it out.

 

EDIT - http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=31057.0

[Guest BooBoo]

A lot of the original post makes sense (barring the nonsene about keeping Moore). Its an example of a decent post by HTL which he's capable of when not sticking up for his bro.

 

More of this sort of thing please.

 

[Delima]

Improving on a shoestring - Can it be done?

 

Yes it can be done. I have suggested many times that we buy in (on a cheap) lots of promising young players surpass to the big teams. If the players turn out crap than ditch him. If they turn out good than hey we pick a gold out of sand.

 

However my idea isn't warmly received here I think.

 

Free transfer is also what I like. If Sibierski and Bernard would cost transfer money than I wouldn't have bought them. If they won't, I would. Sibierski turns out to be a useful player and although Bernard doesn't, we didn't really lose anything.

 

Of course, free transfer should not replace proper transfer.

[Guest alex]

While a Director of Football isn't necessarily the answer to a club's problems, we could do with one to put a bit of much needed distance between Shepherd and team affairs imo.

[NE5]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing shite, how would the DOF get them out of it?

 

Absolutely. I asked Baggio a while ago if he thought the yids would be in the same position if Santini hadn't chickened out, but he didn't respond.

 

 

[Guest Knightrider]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing s****, how would the DOF get them out of it?

 

He wouldn't, however when the under performing manager is replaced the new manager will walk into a club with a great squad and an excellent scouting network, btw wasn't it Arnesen that brought Jol in as a coach?

 

Football is too big to leave it all to one man now, there was a thread on here months ago on how many staff the big clubs employ compared to us, I'll try to dig it out.

 

EDIT - http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=31057.0

 

What happens if the new manager doesn't rate some of the squad left over from the previous manager?

 

Fergie et al don't have any problems managing a club without a DOF, neither did SBR who was in his 60s when he took over Newcastle, he worked 18 hours a day at times.

 

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you here or against the idea of a DOF, at times I've wondered myself whether we should go down that route but only because the manager is inept in certain areas. Again, if we had a top manager in charge, there would be no need for a DOF. Spurs appointed one because their new board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf. At the moment it looks like they have a good setup there, but Jol and the team out on the pitch will determine whether Spurs as a club succeed and not their DOF.

[NE5]

A lot of the original post makes sense (barring the nonsene about keeping Moore). Its an example of a decent post by HTL which he's capable of when not sticking up for his bro.

 

More of this sort of thing please.

 

 

I take it you will be copying and pasting it then, or do you just do that with your sister, as I certainly haven't seen anything remotedly worthwhile of yours......... BTW, quite a lot of his posts are worth reading, but its just a shame you don't have a mind of your own or you would see it. Mind you, he thinks a lot of you, just like I do 

[NE5]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing s****, how would the DOF get them out of it?

 

He wouldn't, however when the under performing manager is replaced the new manager will walk into a club with a great squad and an excellent scouting network, btw wasn't it Arnesen that brought Jol in as a coach?

 

Football is too big to leave it all to one man now, there was a thread on here months ago on how many staff the big clubs employ compared to us, I'll try to dig it out.

 

EDIT - http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=31057.0

 

What happens if the new manager doesn't rate some of the squad left over from the previous manager?

 

Fergie et al don't have any problems managing a club without a DOF, neither did SBR who was in his 60s when he took over Newcastle, he worked 18 hours a day at times.

 

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you here or against the idea of a DOF, at times I've wondered myself whether we should go down that route but only because the manager is inept in certain areas. Again, if we had a top manager in charge, there would be no need for a DOF. Spurs appointed one because their new board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf. At the moment it looks like they have a good setup there, but Jol and the team out on the pitch will determine whether Spurs as a club succeed and not their DOF.

 

Spot on again.

 

With a poor manager, or the wrong manager for you, you are pissing in the wind. It has been pointed out the experience of Fulham, for instance, where Wilkins was manager and Keegan was DOF. Basically Wilkins was shit and Fulham took off when Keegan sacked Wilkins and did the job himself, I've mentioned this before to Baggio but he ignores it ........ 

 

Plans, DOF etc etc........its all bollocks. A good manager doesn't need any of it.

 

 

[Baggio]

Absolutely. I asked Baggio a while ago if he thought the yids would be in the same position if Santini hadn't chickened out, but he didn't respond.

 

Well I've just searched the word Santini by NE5 on this site and no questions by you towards me have come up.

 

You last used the word Santini on May 28th 2006.

 

So you're obviously telling lies.

[NE5]

Absolutely. I asked Baggio a while ago if he thought the yids would be in the same position if Santini hadn't chickened out, but he didn't respond.

 

Well I've just searched the word Santini by NE5 on this site and no questions by you towards me have come up.

 

You last used the word Santini on May 28th 2006.

 

So you're obviously telling lies.

 

Fancy that eh, you mean editing posts.......No, I have not made it up and I'm not sad enough to go looking anyway. BTW, it isn't too late for you to comment, better late than never ?

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing s****, how would the DOF get them out of it?

 

He wouldn't, however when the under performing manager is replaced the new manager will walk into a club with a great squad and an excellent scouting network, btw wasn't it Arnesen that brought Jol in as a coach?

 

Football is too big to leave it all to one man now, there was a thread on here months ago on how many staff the big clubs employ compared to us, I'll try to dig it out.

 

EDIT - http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=31057.0

 

What happens if the new manager doesn't rate some of the squad left over from the previous manager?

 

Fergie et al don't have any problems managing a club without a DOF, neither did SBR who was in his 60s when he took over Newcastle, he worked 18 hours a day at times.

 

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you here or against the idea of a DOF, at times I've wondered myself whether we should go down that route but only because the manager is inept in certain areas. Again, if we had a top manager in charge, there would be no need for a DOF. Spurs appointed one because their new board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf. At the moment it looks like they have a good setup there, but Jol and the team out on the pitch will determine whether Spurs as a club succeed and not their DOF.

 

Spot on again.

 

With a poor manager, or the wrong manager for you, you are pissing in the wind. It has been pointed out the experience of Fulham, for instance, where Wilkins was manager and Keegan was DOF. Basically Wilkins was s*** and Fulham took off when Keegan sacked Wilkins and did the job himself, I've mentioned this before to Baggio but he ignores it ........ 

 

Plans, DOF etc etc........its all bollocks. A good manager doesn't need any of it.

 

 

 

I've just searched the word Wilkins by NE5 and nothing has been directed towards me, still more lies from you. Pathetic.

[Baggio]

Absolutely. I asked Baggio a while ago if he thought the yids would be in the same position if Santini hadn't chickened out, but he didn't respond.

 

Well I've just searched the word Santini by NE5 on this site and no questions by you towards me have come up.

 

You last used the word Santini on May 28th 2006.

 

So you're obviously telling lies.

 

Fancy that eh, you mean editing posts.......No, I have not made it up and I'm not sad enough to go looking anyway. BTW, it isn't too late for you to comment, better late than never ?

 

 

 

 

 

If you provide me with a link where you asked me before then I'll answer your question, unless you can't of course.

[Guest Knightrider]

3. I think we only have 2 decent strikers in Owen and Martins, so the top priority for me is another striker before defenders. I want us to get rid of Ameobi and Sibierski.

 

That's madness. We have NO decent defenders, none. We do have decent strikers though, as you've admitted. Yet you would rather we bought some back-up strikers instead of defenders? Crazy. As for selling Ameobi, why, he is a more than capable back-up striker? Why get rid of a back-up striker only to buy a new one, i.e. replace like for like? Doesn't make sense.

 

Good overall post but the bit quoted doesn't make much sense both financial and squad improvement wise.

 

Regarding the question in hand, yes it can be done but we don't have the set-up off the field to find ourselves some adequate players on limited money, nor the coaching skills to improve average players, ala Sam Allardyce at Bolton.

 

In short we will spend money again, despite the fact we don't have much (losing £1m a month). But then that's the position we've been forced into due to appointing the wrong manager... again. If they don't back him, he is guaranteed to fail, if they do back him and he fails which is very likely, well, we will be well and truly fucked and so will the next poor sod to take the hotseat ala Roeder being handicapped due to Souness' era.

 

Anyway, does anyone have any faith in Roeder or the club improving things even with some money, never mind without much? I don't.

 

Sorry to be pessimistic like but we've dug ourselves a deep hole here and don't have the right tools to get out of it whatever way you look at it. I'm personally hoping for a rescuer because that's what we need.

[Greg]

Absolutely. I asked Baggio a while ago if he thought the yids would be in the same position if Santini hadn't chickened out, but he didn't respond.

 

Well I've just searched the word Santini by NE5 on this site and no questions by you towards me have come up.

 

You last used the word Santini on May 28th 2006.

 

So you're obviously telling lies.

 

Fancy that eh, you mean editing posts.......No, I have not made it up and I'm not sad enough to go looking anyway. BTW, it isn't too late for you to comment, better late than never ?

 

 

 

 

 

Can you provide me with a link then?

 

I've found it.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=11726&hl=Santini&st=20

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/style_emoticons/default/crylaughin.gif

[Baggio]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing s****, how would the DOF get them out of it?

 

He wouldn't, however when the under performing manager is replaced the new manager will walk into a club with a great squad and an excellent scouting network, btw wasn't it Arnesen that brought Jol in as a coach?

 

Football is too big to leave it all to one man now, there was a thread on here months ago on how many staff the big clubs employ compared to us, I'll try to dig it out.

 

EDIT - http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=31057.0

 

What happens if the new manager doesn't rate some of the squad left over from the previous manager?

 

Fergie et al don't have any problems managing a club without a DOF, neither did SBR who was in his 60s when he took over Newcastle, he worked 18 hours a day at times.

 

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you here or against the idea of a DOF, at times I've wondered myself whether we should go down that route but only because the manager is inept in certain areas. Again, if we had a top manager in charge, there would be no need for a DOF. Spurs appointed one because their new board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf. At the moment it looks like they have a good setup there, but Jol and the team out on the pitch will determine whether Spurs as a club succeed and not their DOF.

 

Alex Ferguson had over 20 years to get Man Utd the way he wanted, Bobby Robson was excellent for us but it's often pointed out how much money he wasted, money that we just can't afford to lose anymore, which is the whole point of this thread.

 

You say Spurs appointed one because their board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf, isn't that the case with us? Can we really trust Shepherd and Hall to bring in a manager after employing both Souness and Roeder? If you look at the other 'Big clubs' in the Premiership they are all ran by people with knowledge of football with the owners in the background, Abramovich owns Chelsea yet he isn't chairman, at Arsenal it is David Dein not Peter Hill-Wood, at Manchester United while the Glazers own it they realise their shortcomings and it is David Gill who runs the show, we need someone like that.

 

I'm not saying a DOF should come in and buy all the players he wants, I'm saying how much the club would benefit by having someone in who could set up a top scouting network and spot bargain players at other clubs, of course the manager would have the final say on all transfers for the first team but having Roeder ringing around trying to get anyone in on loan on January 31st is a bit of a joke as far as I'm concerned.

 

People talk about Keegan at Fulham and Pleat at Spurs failing as DOF, neither of these have any sort of knowledge of setting up scouting networks or anything like that, both were appointed because of who they are not what they know.

 

I would of thought the 5th best club over the past decade and the 8th biggest club in the World would have enough contacts to find someone with a proven track record as a DOF to come in and sort this club out, however I have strong doubts it would work with Shepherd as chairman.

[Baggio]

Absolutely. I asked Baggio a while ago if he thought the yids would be in the same position if Santini hadn't chickened out, but he didn't respond.

 

Well I've just searched the word Santini by NE5 on this site and no questions by you towards me have come up.

 

You last used the word Santini on May 28th 2006.

 

So you're obviously telling lies.

 

Fancy that eh, you mean editing posts.......No, I have not made it up and I'm not sad enough to go looking anyway. BTW, it isn't too late for you to comment, better late than never ?

 

 

 

 

 

Can you provide me with a link then?

 

I've found it.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=11726&hl=Santini&st=20

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/style_emoticons/default/crylaughin.gif

 

[Guest Knightrider]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing s****, how would the DOF get them out of it?

 

He wouldn't, however when the under performing manager is replaced the new manager will walk into a club with a great squad and an excellent scouting network, btw wasn't it Arnesen that brought Jol in as a coach?

 

Football is too big to leave it all to one man now, there was a thread on here months ago on how many staff the big clubs employ compared to us, I'll try to dig it out.

 

EDIT - http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=31057.0

 

What happens if the new manager doesn't rate some of the squad left over from the previous manager?

 

Fergie et al don't have any problems managing a club without a DOF, neither did SBR who was in his 60s when he took over Newcastle, he worked 18 hours a day at times.

 

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you here or against the idea of a DOF, at times I've wondered myself whether we should go down that route but only because the manager is inept in certain areas. Again, if we had a top manager in charge, there would be no need for a DOF. Spurs appointed one because their new board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf. At the moment it looks like they have a good setup there, but Jol and the team out on the pitch will determine whether Spurs as a club succeed and not their DOF.

 

Alex Ferguson had over 20 years to get Man Utd the way he wanted, Bobby Robson was excellent for us but it's often pointed out how much money he wasted, money that we just can't afford to lose anymore, which is the whole point of this thread.

 

You say Spurs appointed one because their board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf, isn't that the case with us? Can we really trust Shepherd and Hall to bring in a manager after employing both Souness and Roeder? If you look at the other 'Big clubs' in the Premiership they are all ran by people with knowledge of football with the owners in the background, Abramovich owns Chelsea yet he isn't chairman, at Arsenal it is David Dein not Peter Hill-Wood, at Manchester United while the Glazers own it they realise their shortcomings and it is David Gill who runs the show, we need someone like that.

 

I'm not saying a DOF should come in and buy all the players he wants, I'm saying how much the club would benefit by having someone in who could set up a top scouting network and spot bargain players at other clubs, of course the manager would have the final say on all transfers for the first team but having Roeder ringing around trying to get anyone in on loan on January 31st is a bit of a joke as far as I'm concerned.

 

People talk about Keegan at Fulham and Pleat at Spurs failing as DOF, neither of these have any sort of knowledge of setting up scouting networks or anything like that, both were appointed because of who they are not what they know.

 

I would of thought the 5th best club over the past decade and the 8th biggest club in the World would have enough contacts to find someone with a proven track record as a DOF to come in and sort this club out, however I have strong doubts it would work with Shepherd as chairman.

 

Fair enough Baggio, you make some good points and put a strong case forward but would you concede that appointing a top manager and giving him complete control would reduce the need for a DOF and therfore be the best option?

 

For me a DOF at Newcastle defeats the object somewhat, it is kind of like being bought off. "OK, you can't have a top manager, you'll have to do with a shit one, but to soften the blow, we'll bring in a DOF".

[CaliMag]

Very interesting thread (aside from the usual hijack).

 

I like HTL's proposed team and I really like scy's but both of them have Moore and Nobby. As stated many people on here have concerns about Nobby over the course of a season - I have the same concerns if Moore stayed (which I do not think he will). and in both cases I think people's hesitancy to rate either of them is due to the fact that both tend to have two good games followed by one really terrible one. Witness Solano against Charlton for an example. In both of their cases this happens after a two or three game run (usually during a cup or European game) - neither player can handle playing more than one game a week and if there are two in less than 6 days neither is able to do well. Next year will be even harder for Nobby and I am an unabashedly huge fan of his.

 

A solution for no money on the RB would be to convert Milner. In HTL and scy's teams the fullbacks are going to have to do most of the running anyway and Milner could handle this. Once in a blue moon he can also put in a good cross - if him and Nobby trained together and were consistantly trained in that spot it might work. Also we must remember that next season is probably Nobby's last - according to a recent interview I believe he is planning on retiring in 2008 and moving back to Peru to pursue coaching.

 

As for the troubled CB positions without Moore we are a bit stuck but playing narrow with Butt and Parker as DCM's must surely take some of the pressure off... right? How about converting Parker to CB (then moving Emre Back and replacing with Zoggy)? He may not have many skills but he can tackle very very hard. He could stay as captain in that position as well.

 

In LB we have to get in someone new. Babayaro and Bernard are clearly not going to make it. Zoggy might be converted there but that would be a waste of his emerging midfield talent.

 

Taking a loss: I think morale is so tenuous at the club that we need to get rid of the unhappy players even if that means taking huge financial losses (buying out massive contracts). I am talking about Luque when writing this but I am sure there are other players that are not happy being at Newcastle and they need to be gotten rid of. They drag the whole team down.

 

Keeping the dross: Keeping players like Sibierski is important. These type of players counterbalance the impacts of players like Luque and can raise team morale. They are not world beaters but are triers and set an example for others especially in training and in desperate spots. Players in the past that were not very good but had a positive impact on others and in many cases raised the whole team: Dabizas, K. Gallacher, Bez and Acuna.

 

I think a shoestring budget is what we will have so regardless of what we would like in ideal cicumstances some form of what has been discussed here will probably be tried at some stage next season.

[Baggio]

I've said it many times before over on toontastic, we need to bring in a Director of Football type figure to completely change everything behind the scenes at the club, someone who can set up a top scouting network to find all he top young players and someone who can spot cheap players in smaller foreign leagues who can come in cheap and do a job.

 

Not only would it benefit the club but it would take a lot of pressure off the manager and leave him to concentrate on the first team squad only.

 

This was my actual post.

 

"An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc)

 

On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with s**** like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them.

 

I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million.

 

Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in.

 

Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge."

 

The part about them spending £10 million and not hurting their finances too much is because as far as I'm aware they already have the cash in the bank, compared to us who would have to loan it from the bank, I thought I should clear up that point before someone gets their knickers in a twist over it.

 

I'm not exactly averse to a DOF but a good manager won't need one. And just because Spurs are doing well under one doesn't mean anything really, I'd say their progress is all down to Jol and the team on the pitch more than anything else. If they were doing s****, how would the DOF get them out of it?

 

He wouldn't, however when the under performing manager is replaced the new manager will walk into a club with a great squad and an excellent scouting network, btw wasn't it Arnesen that brought Jol in as a coach?

 

Football is too big to leave it all to one man now, there was a thread on here months ago on how many staff the big clubs employ compared to us, I'll try to dig it out.

 

EDIT - http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=31057.0

 

What happens if the new manager doesn't rate some of the squad left over from the previous manager?

 

Fergie et al don't have any problems managing a club without a DOF, neither did SBR who was in his 60s when he took over Newcastle, he worked 18 hours a day at times.

 

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you here or against the idea of a DOF, at times I've wondered myself whether we should go down that route but only because the manager is inept in certain areas. Again, if we had a top manager in charge, there would be no need for a DOF. Spurs appointed one because their new board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf. At the moment it looks like they have a good setup there, but Jol and the team out on the pitch will determine whether Spurs as a club succeed and not their DOF.

 

Alex Ferguson had over 20 years to get Man Utd the way he wanted, Bobby Robson was excellent for us but it's often pointed out how much money he wasted, money that we just can't afford to lose anymore, which is the whole point of this thread.

 

You say Spurs appointed one because their board came from a non-footballing background and thought they needed a middleman to help them run the club on their behalf, isn't that the case with us? Can we really trust Shepherd and Hall to bring in a manager after employing both Souness and Roeder? If you look at the other 'Big clubs' in the Premiership they are all ran by people with knowledge of football with the owners in the background, Abramovich owns Chelsea yet he isn't chairman, at Arsenal it is David Dein not Peter Hill-Wood, at Manchester United while the Glazers own it they realise their shortcomings and it is David Gill who runs the show, we need someone like that.

 

I'm not saying a DOF should come in and buy all the players he wants, I'm saying how much the club would benefit by having someone in who could set up a top scouting network and spot bargain players at other clubs, of course the manager would have the final say on all transfers for the first team but having Roeder ringing around trying to get anyone in on loan on January 31st is a bit of a joke as far as I'm concerned.

 

People talk about Keegan at Fulham and Pleat at Spurs failing as DOF, neither of these have any sort of knowledge of setting up scouting networks or anything like that, both were appointed because of who they are not what they know.

 

I would of thought the 5th best club over the past decade and the 8th biggest club in the World would have enough contacts to find someone with a proven track record as a DOF to come in and sort this club out, however I have strong doubts it would work with Shepherd as chairman.

 

Fair enough Baggio, you make some good points and put a strong case forward but would you concede that appointing a top manager and giving him complete control would reduce the need for a DOF and therfore be the best option?

 

For me a DOF at Newcastle defeats the object somewhat, it is kind of like being bought off. "OK, you can't have a top manager, you'll have to do with a s*** one, but to soften the blow, we'll bring in a DOF".

 

I'm not saying we should have to do with a shit one, a top manager is important and what matters most as far as the first team squad is concerned, however Mourinho and Wenger, both top manager,  have someone in the background taking care of every other aspect of the club from scouting to fitness etc as the job is just too big for one man alone, football has moved on a lot since the Premiership was invented.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/4224278.stm