Director of football ?

[beddie]

Let's pretend then that this Director of Football role works, the 'Head Coach' and 'Director of Football' get on like a house on fire and TOGETHER bring unimaginable success to the respective club. Do they not then become a partnership who want to carry on working together wherever they go?

I’d imagine they’d be poached fairly quickly with that type of success and presumably carry on working together wherever that was.

[NottsClaret]

I can see how the role is important these days, there’s so much more than just coaching to do. Ten Hag has just said it’s a relief he’s not involved anymore in transfers.

I think it’s probably a fair point though about it not necessarily adding stability. As the role becomes more common and they start to become well known, there’s going to be an increasing amount of movement as with Ashworth. And then you have to start all over again anyway.

[claretspice]

Have you any reason to suggest that the same "longevity" won't apply to DOFs?

Yes. A couple of reasons.

The first would be to look at their average tenure as a matter of fact. It is just the case that they do stay in post longer.

Secondly, it's the nature of the role. The Head Coach is judged on instant results and attracts the associated media profile. It is, as i say, a role that has (inevitably and irreversibly) become increasingly biased towards short term thinking. The technical or sporting director - or director of football - operates away from that glare of public scrutiny and demand for instant results. As a result clubs don't change the role holder as much and there's much less turnover. It is far more like a Chief Executive in that respect than a manager.

But even if technical directors were to move as frequently as managers, they'd still promote long-term thinking because the changes would likely be offset, and their respective remits are different. Similar to how in most large corporates, the Chairman and CEO have distinct remits that avoid one person calling all the shots and serve different terms which mean that when one goes, the entire commercial strategy of that organisation isn't up for grabs. Continuity and longevity may amount to stability but they are not necessarily the same thing.

Go back beyond recent times at Burnley. After Coyle left we had Laws, then Howe, then Dyche. Four very different philosophies. As it happened the last of those changes was very successful but it doesn't alter that this was a turbulent period without much long term thinking. Howe was even permitted to completely - and by most assessments, disastrously - overhaul our youth set up. A technical director would have been responsible for avoiding those errors and ensuring more continuity of thought.

[Goliath]

Yes. A couple of reasons.

The first would be to look at their average tenure as a matter of fact. It is just the case that they do stay in post longer.

Secondly, it's the nature of the role. The Head Coach is judged on instant results and attracts the associated media profile. It is, as i say, a role that has (inevitably and irreversibly) become increasingly biased towards short term thinking. The technical or sporting director - or director of football - operates away from that glare of public scrutiny and demand for instant results. As a result clubs don't change the role holder as much and there's much less turnover. It is far more like a Chief Executive in that respect than a manager.

But even if technical directors were to move as frequently as managers, they'd still promote long-term thinking because the changes would likely be offset, and their respective remits are different. Similar to how in most large corporates, the Chairman and CEO have distinct remits that avoid one person calling all the shots and serve different terms which mean that when one goes, the entire commercial strategy of that organisation isn't up for grabs.

Go back beyond recent times at Burnley. After Coyle left we had Laws, then Howe, then Dyche. Four very different philosophies. As it happened the last of those changes was very successful but it doesn't alter that this was a turbulent period without much long term thinking. Howe was even permitted to completely - and by most assessments, disastrously - overhaul our youth set up. A technical director would have been responsible for avoiding those errors and ensuring more continuity of thought.

There is an issue with this thinking though. You end up losing managers like Dyche because no club puts a long term plan of a direct 442 with an occasional low block.

As we saw ourselves, sometimes the drastic change in approach can really benefit players as it makes them a lot more rounded.
Think of Trippier as an example, he was brilliant going forwards under Howe but he needed Dyche and then Simeone to get his defensive skills up to scratch.

Ben Mee was another who improved drastically with the change of approach

[claretspice]

There is an issue with this thinking though. You end up losing managers like Dyche because no club puts a long term plan of a direct 442 with an occasional low block.

As we saw ourselves, sometimes the drastic change in approach can really benefit players as it makes them a lot more rounded.
Think of Trippier as an example, he was brilliant going forwards under Howe but he needed Dyche and then Simeone to get his defensive skills up to scratch.

Ben Mee was another who improved drastically with the change of approach

I don't think that is true, and if you want an example of a club who have adopted a Director of Football approach and stuck to (or made a strategic decision to adopt) a less fashionable style of football, I'd cite Stoke in the Pulis era (John Rudge as DoF) and Luton currently. Brighton did the opposite when they appointed Potter to replace the more pragmatic Chris Hughton (and indeed during Hughton's reign were another example to my point). If a club wants to make a strategic decision to go in a particular direction, perhaps because they think the playing staff will suit it, nothing in having a DoF stops it. But it might ensure it is a thought through calculation rather than a happy accident.

EDIT: of course Dyche himself is working within a set up with a DoF at Everton.

[Goliath]

I don't think that is true, and if you want an example of a club who have adopted a Director of Football approach and stuck to (or made a strategic decision to adopt) a less fashionable style of football, I'd cite Stoke in the Pulis era (John Rudge as DoF) and Luton currently. Brighton did the opposite when they appointed Potter to replace the more pragmatic Chris Hughton (and indeed during Hughton's reign were another example to my point). If a club wants to make a strategic decision to go in a particular direction, perhaps because they think the playing staff will suit it, nothing in having a DoF stops it. But it might ensure it is a thought through calculation rather than a happy accident.

So the only examples of that are Stoke of 10 years ago and Luton?

[claretspice]

So the only examples of that are Stoke of 10 years ago and Luton?

No, not at all. Dyche currently another example as I've said. There'll be loads, including almost every club on the continent as its an even more established model over there. I just cited a couple of very successful examples to address your contention off the top of my head.

[Hanoverusaclaret]

Is anyone really suggesting that big clubs should go back to a handful of folks running everything? These days clubs are dealing with 100's of millions of talent, academies, multiple facilities, restaurants, and high-volume merchandizing empires. To be successful clubs have to have everything working in sync. Granted Burnley is a more family orientated club, but to compete in the top two leagues we have to run the business right. I'm waiting for someone to suggest that Bob Lord would prosper in today's times because he was no nonsense. Jeez.
A director of football is just that. A voice for the footballing side on the company's board. Someone who leads all the aspects that directly impact the players. Coaches rarely last two years these days. Part of that is the need for immediate results, the other part is because it is hard to prevent staleness over time. A DOF is the way to keep continuity at the club, rather than totally changing streams every time a new manager walks in.
Brighton is a perfect example of how it can work well. The coach changes and the recruitment policy doesn't. The contracts will be handled the same way regardless of the coach. The academy will be the same regardless of a new coach.
One of my former teammates is pretty high up in Newcastle's recruitment team. He's just one part of a huge operation that spans the world. There is no way an old-style manager and a head scout could cope with those demands. It takes a large team. It has all changes massively even in the last ten years. The more time the coaching team can spend on the training field with the players the better. Yes, they should be involved in player selections and be able to voice their opinions. However, the days of someone like Brian Clough running a one-man show are ancient history.

[equinox]

Mod: Unnecessary post removed.

[equinox]

MOD: Unnecessary post removed.

[Hanoverusaclaret]

Not willing to engage with someone just looking to antagonize. Sorry not biting. Keyboard warriors are a dime a dozen.

[Goliath]

Is anyone really suggesting that big clubs should go back to a handful of folks running everything? These days clubs are dealing with 100's of millions of talent, academies, multiple facilities, restaurants, and high-volume merchandizing empires. To be successful clubs have to have everything working in sync. Granted Burnley is a more family orientated club, but to compete in the top two leagues we have to run the business right. I'm waiting for someone to suggest that Bob Lord would prosper in today's times because he was no nonsense. Jeez.
A director of football is just that. A voice for the footballing side on the company's board. Someone who leads all the aspects that directly impact the players. Coaches rarely last two years these days. Part of that is the need for immediate results, the other part is because it is hard to prevent staleness over time. A DOF is the way to keep continuity at the club, rather than totally changing streams every time a new manager walks in.
Brighton is a perfect example of how it can work well. The coach changes and the recruitment policy doesn't. The contracts will be handled the same way regardless of the coach. The academy will be the same regardless of a new coach.
One of my former teammates is pretty high up in Newcastle's recruitment team. He's just one part of a huge operation that spans the world. There is no way an old-style manager and a head scout could cope with those demands. It takes a large team. It has all changes massively even in the last ten years. The more time the coaching team can spend on the training field with the players the better. Yes, they should be involved in player selections and be able to voice their opinions. However, the days of someone like Brian Clough running a one-man show are ancient history.

It depends how you view it as well. I think realistically you could argue that Ferguson became more similar to a modern day DOF rather than just an old school manager. That's as much a label thing as a generational thing with some variances on how recruitment is done.

[ClaretTony]

It depends how you view it as well. I think realistically you could argue that Ferguson became more similar to a modern day DOF rather than just an old school manager. That's as much a label thing as a generational thing with some variances on how recruitment is done.

Ferguson had David Gill who he clearly trusted to do a lot of the work you would get from a DoF. Similarly for Arsène Wenger at Arsenal with David Dein.

[Goliath]

Ferguson had David Gill who he clearly trusted to do a lot of the work you would get from a DoF. Similarly for Arsène Wenger at Arsenal with David Dein.

Yep but then Ferguson would do none of the coaching and leave that responsibility to the coaches. He seemed to just oversee everything.
I don't really know how you'd categorise his role nowadays but he definitely wouldn't have been a head coach.

[claretspice]

Yep but then Ferguson would do none of the coaching and leave that responsibility to the coaches. He seemed to just oversee everything.
I don't really know how you'd categorise his role nowadays but he definitely wouldn't have been a head coach.

Only feasible if you've been in charge for as long, and with the success, Ferguson had.

[Claret86]

Yes. A couple of reasons.

The first would be to look at their average tenure as a matter of fact. It is just the case that they do stay in post longer.

Secondly, it's the nature of the role. The Head Coach is judged on instant results and attracts the associated media profile. It is, as i say, a role that has (inevitably and irreversibly) become increasingly biased towards short term thinking. The technical or sporting director - or director of football - operates away from that glare of public scrutiny and demand for instant results. As a result clubs don't change the role holder as much and there's much less turnover. It is far more like a Chief Executive in that respect than a manager.

But even if technical directors were to move as frequently as managers, they'd still promote long-term thinking because the changes would likely be offset, and their respective remits are different. Similar to how in most large corporates, the Chairman and CEO have distinct remits that avoid one person calling all the shots and serve different terms which mean that when one goes, the entire commercial strategy of that organisation isn't up for grabs. Continuity and longevity may amount to stability but they are not necessarily the same thing.

Go back beyond recent times at Burnley. After Coyle left we had Laws, then Howe, then Dyche. Four very different philosophies. As it happened the last of those changes was very successful but it doesn't alter that this was a turbulent period without much long term thinking. Howe was even permitted to completely - and by most assessments, disastrously - overhaul our youth set up. A technical director would have been responsible for avoiding those errors and ensuring more continuity of thought.

What did Howe do to our youth set up? First I've heard about it

[boatshed bill]

Yes. A couple of reasons.

The first would be to look at their average tenure as a matter of fact. It is just the case that they do stay in post longer.

Secondly, it's the nature of the role. The Head Coach is judged on instant results and attracts the associated media profile. It is, as i say, a role that has (inevitably and irreversibly) become increasingly biased towards short term thinking. The technical or sporting director - or director of football - operates away from that glare of public scrutiny and demand for instant results. As a result clubs don't change the role holder as much and there's much less turnover. It is far more like a Chief Executive in that respect than a manager.

But even if technical directors were to move as frequently as managers, they'd still promote long-term thinking because the changes would likely be offset, and their respective remits are different. Similar to how in most large corporates, the Chairman and CEO have distinct remits that avoid one person calling all the shots and serve different terms which mean that when one goes, the entire commercial strategy of that organisation isn't up for grabs. Continuity and longevity may amount to stability but they are not necessarily the same thing.

Go back beyond recent times at Burnley. After Coyle left we had Laws, then Howe, then Dyche. Four very different philosophies. As it happened the last of those changes was very successful but it doesn't alter that this was a turbulent period without much long term thinking. Howe was even permitted to completely - and by most assessments, disastrously - overhaul our youth set up. A technical director would have been responsible for avoiding those errors and ensuring more continuity of thought.

Managers having (maybe) too much say in policy?
But for all the bad Howe may have done Dyche did brilliantly, when fully backed by Mike Garlick,, in the development at Gawthorpe.

[roperclaret]

Managers having (maybe) too much say in policy?
But for all the bad Howe may have done Dyche did brilliantly, when fully backed by Mike Garlick,, in the development at Gawthorpe.

He did, but mainly for the first team squad. I’m not sure he cared much about bringing youths through.

[123EasyasBFC]

My lad plays football manager and says his director of football does everything for him, spends an hour every save setting his director of football and staff responsibilities up.

Back on the old champ manager you just signed Cherno samba and you knew you would win the league

[boatshed bill]

He did, but mainly for the first team squad. I’m not sure he cared much about bringing youths through.

Agreed.
But the development at Gawthorpe was an outstanding development for the club in its own right.
Would a DOF have had the same vision? Obviously we'll never know.

[roperclaret]

Agreed.
But the development at Gawthorpe was an outstanding development for the club in its own right.
Would a DOF have had the same vision? Obviously we'll never know.

You’d hope a good one would. That would be part of their role to improve all parts of football operations.

[boatshed bill]

You’d hope a good one would. That would be part of their role to improve all parts of football operations.

Unless the need for short-term success takes over.

[Goliath]

Unless the need for short-term success takes over.

This is the main issue. The idea that a more old fashioned style manager can't succeed is nonsense. Dyche proved that at Burnley, if they are given a lot of responsibility and trust then it's vital that they are there for the long term, which is the issue.

I suppose it's an issue with both the fans who are a lot less patient these days and managers who are much quicker to move ships when they get the chance imo.

[roperclaret]

Unless the need for short-term success takes over.

That would fall on the head coach/manager not the DOF. As has been explained quite a few times on this thread

[boatshed bill]

That would fall on the head coach/manager not the DOF. As has been explained quite a few times on this thread

Has it?

[roperclaret]

This is the main issue. The idea that a more old fashioned style manager can't succeed is nonsense. Dyche proved that at Burnley, if they are given a lot of responsibility and trust then it's vital that they are there for the long term, which is the issue.

I suppose it's an issue with both the fans who are a lot less patient these days and managers who are much quicker to move ships when they get the chance imo.

There’s some truth in this. Dyche was successful quickly. If he’d not got promotion in 2 or 3 years many fans would have been demanding a change and then Gawthorpe would probably still be not fit for purpose

[Goliath]

There’s some truth in this. Dyche was successful quickly. If he’d not got promotion in 2 or 3 years many fans would have been demanding a change and then Gawthorpe would probably still be not fit for purpose

Yep. I think generally directors at football clubs are far more likely to cave in to supporter demands these days. Fans then see this and realise the louder they voice their discontent the quicker they can get a manager out that they don't like.

It's a vicious circle which probably then leads to managers realising they have to look after themselves rather than have any loyalty to a club.

[ClaretTony]

What did Howe do to our youth set up? First I've heard about it

He was allowed to get control of it. He then got rid of good staff and brought in his mate who caused a lot of damage to it.

[roperclaret]

Has it?

Claretspice explained exactly that. Do you even read the threads?

[boatshed bill]

Claretspice explained exactly that. Do you even read the threads?

His explanation, yes i read it.

[claretspice]

Agreed.
But the development at Gawthorpe was an outstanding development for the club in its own right.
Would a DOF have had the same vision? Obviously we'll never know.

It's exactly the sort of decision you'd expect the DoF yo typically force through. Long term over short term. Good on Dyche for making that call at the expense of his playing budget but the fact it was notable that Dyche made the decision bears out that it was not one most managers would have the vision for. Exactly why you need someone whose job is to bat for the long term vision.

[boatshed bill]

It's exactly the sort of decision you'd expect the DoF yo typically force through. Long term over short term. Good on Dyche for making that call at the expense of his playing budget but the fact it was notable that Dyche made the decision bears out that it was not one most managers would have the vision for. Exactly why you need someone whose job is to bat for the long term vision.

I'm not sure that is correct.
Burnley Football Club's own history will tell you that we were pioneers of training away from Turf Moor.
Surely this is down to whether the chairman is up for it, in agreement with the manager.

[Goliath]

It's exactly the sort of decision you'd expect the DoF yo typically force through. Long term over short term. Good on Dyche for making that call at the expense of his playing budget but the fact it was notable that Dyche made the decision bears out that it was not one most managers would have the vision for. Exactly why you need someone whose job is to bat for the long term vision.

But it shows it can also be done if you get the right manager and both parties trust each other enough to make long term decisions, sometimes at the expense of the short term.

I'm not against the new method but I think it becomes easier to pass on responsibility. Managers can just say it wasn't their team and the DOF didn't get recruitment right.

[ClaretTony]

I'm not sure that is correct.
Burnley Football Club's own history will tell you that we were pioneers of training away from Turf Moor.
Surely this is down to whether the chairman is up for it, in agreement with the manager.

Yes we were, but you cannot compare football then which is now 70 years ago to football today.

A football club then was run with precious little staff, there was very little in the way of transfer activity. We were pioneers then but then other clubs caught up and went past us.

Then, the manager would have done virtually everything on the football side but things began to change. By the 1970s we’d employed a chief scout, I’m thinking Dave Blakey was probably the first.

The game continues to evolve and with it the way football clubs are run.

We’ve had three Directors of Football in the last few years, Lee Darnbrough, Frank McParland and Mike Rigg. We’ve never really got the structure correct.

Now we have a head coach, not a manager. We have gone down that route.

[boatshed bill]

Yes we were, but you cannot compare football then which is now 70 years ago to football today.

A football club then was run with precious little staff, there was very little in the way of transfer activity. We were pioneers then but then other clubs caught up and went past us.

Then, the manager would have done virtually everything on the football side but things began to change. By the 1970s we’d employed a chief scout, I’m thinking Dave Blakey was probably the first.

We’ve had three Directors of Football in the last few years, Lee Darnbrough, Frank McParland and Mike Rigg. We’ve never really got the structure correct.

Now we have a head coach, not a manager. We have gone down that route.

CT, I didn't realise that they held that title.
But as they did, why have we (apparently) dropped the role recently?

[ClaretTony]

CT, I didn't realise that they held that title.
But as they did, why have we (apparently) dropped the role recently?

They all probably had different titles but they were all brought in for that purpose and to develop that part of the club. The last one Rigg didn’t last long when Pace came in.

Why? We’ve no CEO either. When Pace sacked Hart, he said we would recruit a replacement but he would assume the role on an interim basis. That’s now over three years ago.

We dismantled the scouting network from what I can gather and brought in MUD to do a lot of that work.

[boatshed bill]

They all probably had different titles but they were all brought in for that purpose and to develop that part of the club. The last one Rigg didn’t last long when Pace came in.

Do you think Sean Dyche was/would have been happy with these chaps as DOFs?

[ClaretTony]

Do you think Sean Dyche was/would have been happy with these chaps as DOFs?

He worked well with Wilson (I’m sure that’s what he was called) at Watford and now with Thelwell at Everton. He’d worked with McParland before too I think.

[ClaretTony]

March 2021 when Hart was fired - this was the statement from the club with quotes from Pace.


Burnley Football Club is to commence the search for a new Chief Executive Officer following the departure of Neil Hart, who took on the role in March 2020 and departs the club to pursue new opportunities.

Alan Pace, the Chairman of Burnley FC, will take on the role of Executive Chairman, overseeing the club for an interim period until a new CEO is appointed.

Pace said: “With the significant impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the last year has involved several challenges in overseeing a Premier League football club, and I’d like to recognise Neil for the work he’s done at Burnley and in the local community.

“While overseeing the club in the interim period, the board and I will begin the search for a new CEO immediately and will update supporters in due course.”

[boatshed bill]

He worked well with Wilson (I’m sure that’s what he was called) at Watford and now with Thelwell at Everton. He’d worked with McParland before too I think.

What about at Burnley?

[ClaretTony]

What about at Burnley?

Not with you. He was influential in McParland coming in.

Dyche is a forward thinking, modern manager.

[boatshed bill]

Not with you. He was influential in McParland coming in.

Dyche is a forward thinking, modern manager.

Yes, I agree with you. I actually don't remember McParland even being at Burnley.
But on a different note: Isn't a CEO more of an administrative rather than technical footballing role? Only asking, I have never seen a job description of either.

[123EasyasBFC]

Not with you. He was influential in McParland coming in.

Dyche is a forward thinking, modern manager.

McParland was the summer we brought in lowton, Barton and Gray wasn’t it? Had he left before Tarky came in the Jan?

[ClaretTony]

Yes, I agree with you. I actually don't remember McParland even being at Burnley.
But on a different note: Isn't a CEO more of an administrative rather than technical footballing role? Only asking, I have never seen a job description of either.

I was just pointing out that pace ditched both very quickly. Nothing was ever said about Rigg going but he clearly said we would be replacing Hart and that we would be updated.

McParland had worked at Brentford with Warburton but then came to us in summer 2015 and was key in the signings of Gray & Barton (the positives) and Long & Darikwa (not so positive) for certain. He didn’t stay long and rejoined Warburton at Rangers. He’s head of recruitment at Birmingham now.

[aggi]

There is an issue with this thinking though. You end up losing managers like Dyche because no club puts a long term plan of a direct 442 with an occasional low block.

As we saw ourselves, sometimes the drastic change in approach can really benefit players as it makes them a lot more rounded.
Think of Trippier as an example, he was brilliant going forwards under Howe but he needed Dyche and then Simeone to get his defensive skills up to scratch.

Ben Mee was another who improved drastically with the change of approach

Given Dyche was recruited by a club with a Director of Football (one with quite a lot of influence by all accounts) then this doesn't really seem to tally.

[ksrclaret]

Hiring a good Director of Football would be a very good idea. It's very clear what their (increasingly important) role is at a football club.

[Jakubclaret]

A believe it's a lazy way absolving responsibility from the manager hiring a DOF it's just another person to carry the can when things go sh1tshaped. It might work effectively when you are talking about the big big clubs. It's been conditioned as some sort of a normality that these roles are essential for optimum functionality. A similar principles ingrained itself that agents are necessary for player welfare instead of basic common sense being applied.

[Goliath]

Given Dyche was recruited by a club with a Director of Football (one with quite a lot of influence by all accounts) then this doesn't really seem to tally.

Let's not pretend he was hired out of anything but absolute desperation to escape from relegation, not having to pay compensation and being willing to take the job with nothing to spend and an absolute car crash unfolding behind the scenes.

Normal.clubs with a DOF just tend to follow the trends playing style wise. It's maybe why so many teams try to play the same way now. There isn't many Dyche's about, so maybe it does tally after all.

[aggi]

Let's not pretend he was hired out of anything but absolute desperation to escape from relegation, not having to pay compensation and being willing to take the job with nothing to spend and an absolute car crash unfolding behind the scenes.

Normal.clubs with a DOF just tend to follow the trends playing style wise. It's maybe why so many teams try to play the same way now. There isn't many Dyche's about, so maybe it does tally after all.

So sounds like the director of football made a pragmatic appointment rather than going for a Guardiola-lite. That doesn't really prove the point.

I'm not really convinced by your theory, I suspect you're just looking at big clubs who tend to favour that style anyway and making that link but ignoring the flip side of teams like Salford City or Huddersfield.

Personally I'd suggest that a Director of Football is more likely to be pragmatic around the playing style and part of their role would be to explain to the owners why they can't play like Man City if they don't have a budget like Man City.

[aggi]

I think Paul Jenkins has done something of this role under Pace. He's currently down as Director of Football Development but it isn't clear whether that solely relates to the academy or bigger picture as well.

That he was involved in the new manager hunt suggests more likely the latter than just an academy role. Also interesting to note that Lee Mooney (of Mud Analytics) was involved in the new manager hunt. That may assauge the fears of some that Kompany had ripped the heart out of our recruitment team when he left.