DoF

The DoF management structure has thus far proved less successful in the English game but there are examples of it at the highest level throughout Europe.

Generally in the English game a strong talented Manager who has a hand in every aspect of how the club runs, short and long term seems to have been the most successful approach over here.

Is it cultural thing, like how the English prioritise the importance of the National sides Captain far more than other countries in general?

Firstly if there is a DoF there normally is not a manager per se but rather a head coach. This may sound pedantic but I think it's important when talking about the two roles in terms of hierachy.

From what I've heard the main point of a DoF is to ensure continuity as managers tend to come and go.

I think the other point is a DoF cannot lose the dressing room and fairly often that is why managers get the sack.

The DoF management structure has thus far proved less successful in the English game but there are examples of it at the highest level throughout Europe.
=================================================
I personally think that's because English clubs don't understand how it's supposed to work.

They employ them to look after the long-term interests of the club (ie. to ensure that the club still has market-valued assets when managers come and go).....and then they sack them after a year or two

The point is that changes of manager are hugely expensive...not just the staff-payoffs, but all the player movements that follow.

Comolli was wrutten off as a failure at Spurs (and at Liverpool, to be fair), but the reason they were able to buy 110m worth of players on a net-spend of 5m was because of the players Comolli bought.

They made huge profits on Bale, Modric, and a couple of others. People point to his failures, like Bentley, but that is to misunderstand. Overall, his players made a profit when sold on, which gives them a budget to work with when they routinely sack their managers after one season or two.

Spurs (along with City) were the most inefficient transfer- spenders in the Premiership until a couple of years ago, when their net-spend became much lower. Levy has been given the credit for this, but in fact it coincides with the period when Comolii's players were being sold on, and from where I'm sitting, Spurs are now reverting to type, now that most of Comolli's players have left.

The model works differently in different countries, but that's certainly the French model, and it worked a treat for Lyons, who pulled themselves from the shadow of St Etienne, and punched well above their weight, by sticking to the formula of the DoF, Bernard Lacombe.

Benitez operated a similar model at Liverpool, and was effectively his own DoF...but his methods were also widely misinterpreted in the English Press. His players made an overall profit for Liverpool, (in spite of the fact that several of them are still there).

Personally, I think English clubs should just steer clear of DoF's, because they just don't get it, and the way they use them is counter-productive, so it's pointless.

Robbing_Hoody

That's what i don't get - surely it's the manager that should ensure continuity? And this idea that the manager has 'lost the changing room' does my head in - the manager is the boss and if they knew that sulking was going to have no bearing on the manager getting the sack - they wouldn't do it!

comment by Kemlyn Road (U10652)
posted 11 minutes ago
The DoF management structure has thus far proved less successful in the English game but there are examples of it at the highest level throughout Europe.
=================================================
I personally think that's because English clubs don't understand how it's supposed to work.

They employ them to look after the long-term interests of the club (ie. to ensure that the club still has market-valued assets when managers come and go).....and then they sack them after a year or two

The point is that changes of manager are hugely expensive...not just the staff-payoffs, but all the player movements that follow.

Comolli was wrutten off as a failure at Spurs (and at Liverpool, to be fair), but the reason they were able to buy 110m worth of players on a net-spend of 5m was because of the players Comolli bought.

They made huge profits on Bale, Modric, and a couple of others. People point to his failures, like Bentley, but that is to misunderstand. Overall, his players made a profit when sold on, which gives them a budget to work with when they routinely sack their managers after one season or two.

Spurs (along with City) were the most inefficient transfer- spenders in the Premiership until a couple of years ago, when their net-spend became much lower. Levy has been given the credit for this, but in fact it coincides with the period when Comolii's players were being sold on, and from where I'm sitting, Spurs are now reverting to type, now that most of Comolli's players have left.

The model works differently in different countries, but that's certainly the French model, and it worked a treat for Lyons, who pulled themselves from the shadow of St Etienne, and punched well above their weight, by sticking to the formula of the DoF, Bernard Lacombe.

Benitez operated a similar model at Liverpool, and was effectively his own DoF...but his methods were also widely misinterpreted in the English Press. His players made an overall profit for Liverpool, (in spite of the fact that several of them are still there).

Personally, I think English clubs should just steer clear of DoF's, because they just don't get it, and the way they use them is counter-productive, so it's pointless.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good analysis, thanks

The only way it works IMO is if the two have a good relationship with clear lines of authority.

It's difficult to just put two relative strangers together unless each one knows very clearly what their roles are. Then of course they both need to be good at their job.

You could have a rubbish DOF but a great coach, and it wouldn't work. You could have a great DOF and a rubbish coach, and it wouldn't work.

With a manager you are reliant more on the individual to be good at it all, which is more difficult for one person, but also easier to judge if they are doing a good job or not.

AVB was sacked presumably because they thought he was a poor coach, but was he given a good squad to work with? Did Baldini sign the right players with a clear direction? It's more subjective.

If one man is answerable to everything then it's clear who is at fault if it's not working.

Basically I think either way can work very well, and that's been proven, it's all about relationships and how well the club is run from the top down.

If I were a chairman I would probably favour giving a manager full autonomy personally, with obviously his choices of staff to delegate duties too. Then if you fail, it's him who gets the boot, but I can see the arguments for the DOF method.

I agree it can work well but i think the idea of having the DoF to supply continuity is the wrong way around. I don't like the idea of having a DoF at the middle of everything and the coach being a spoke off this hub! Surely the first team in the main focus, so the manager should be the center. A DoF should then work off him to identify/buy players, ensure the youth team plays and trains in a complimentary style to the first team (like Rafa did) etc.

If a club is prepared to commit to a manager like United, Arsenal, Newcastle (if they stick with the contract!) etc, then this is where the continuity comes - the DoF can be replaced and just pick of the vision of the manager. Players have to play for the manager as they know that losing the changing room is not an option as they will jut be replaced long term rather than the manager. I think this model would work well - I think the reason it doesn't work well here is the high turn over of managers!

DoF is in charge of the running of the club, the most important man. However it always feels like he is in the background, simply because as fans we not only concentrate more on the games but things behind the scenes, we aren't privy to most of it.

The coach is there to coach through the training sessions and to put the team out, with the tactics he believes can do best against his opposition. That's why most managers don't want a DoF. I can understand why, for me I'd like to live or die by my decisions, not rely on others and effectively take the blame when things don't work out.

With this you can see why Comolli and Kenny were both sacked but also the bad taste it can leave in many peoples' mouths.

Well Brendan didn't want a DOF and so far he has done very well. He admits he is still learning and I prefer a manager in full control (take the praise/take the blame)
Same as Kenny did. Great to see him back at Anfield.

I think the reason it doesn't work well here is the high turn over of managers!
====================================================
High turnover of managers is in fact the main reason European clubs think they need DoFs.

Take AVB. Although they might not have been his players, he would ha\ve had some say in the transfers, or at tthe very least a veto. (At least you would hope so, otherwise it’s completely dysfunctional).

But now the new manager will have 110m of players that he had no say whatsoever in. That’s a lot of money for a business to just write off. But, theoretically the DoF has ensured that he’s bought players with good re-sale values, so that’s OK. They can sell those he doesn’t want at break-even at least, and the next time they buy, the new manager will have more of a say.

Except that that’s not really what Spurs have done. They’ve paid 27m for a 28-year-old, so there is no way they’ll get back what they paid. They paid top-dollar for Lamela, too.

If you’re going to do that, I don’t see the point in having a DoF, and there’s even less point in changing the DoF every couple of years.

Liverpool will make a massive profit on Suarez if he’s sold on, so in the terms by which he understands the job, I suspect Comolli thinks he fulfilled his remit, because he’s probably in overall profit on the players he bought, both at Spurs and at Liverpool.

But that’s not our understanding of the job, in England. We seem to think he’s there to ensure that every player we buy is a success (except that nobody can do that).

Liverpool’s owners fecked up by employing Comolli if they thought it was a short-term remit, but now that they’ve changed tack, they are better off sticking to the policy of not having a DoF, because keeping the post, but changing the personnel every couple of years, makes no sense whatsoever, and suggests confusion about what the DoF can be expected to do.