Do we need a Director of Football?

[BrizzleRed]

21 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Good grief is he? 

Peter Reid Monkey Heeed. Good in a different era and that's where he needs to stay!

Now that was a classic chant by Newcastle supporters when he was at Sunderland, wasn’t it?  He’s got monkey’s legs and a monkey’s heed, Peter Reid.

Still makes me chuckle

[John Galley]

40 minutes ago, supercidered said:

Good grief is he? 

Peter Reid Monkey Heeed. Good in a different era and that's where he needs to stay!

Spoke to Peter Reid on Wigan’s last visit here and he said they love Bristol and always look forward to visiting.

[Red Skin]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

A coach says what type of player we want, they crunch the numbers so to speak, identify and find players that tick boxes.

Isn't that the essence of the problem.  Said coach leaves, and the next coach wants 'his' players that fit the way he wants to play?

[Red Skin]

3 hours ago, BigTone said:

In these rather strange times I think it is a luxury we can do without especially when others are losing their jobs at AG.

If you just view the role as an extra salary, then yes.   

However, I believe the role should be about giving a consistency to the type of football we play and the players and coaches we recruit to fulfill it.  Without it, we continue to let the incumbent manager guide how we play and the players we buy, leaving us with the need to overhaul the squad each time the head coaches changes.   A much more costly model in the long run, which is only likely to bring short term success at best.

[BigTone]

8 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

If you just view the role as an extra salary, then yes.   

However, I believe the role should be about giving a consistency to the type of football we play and the players and coaches we recruit to fulfill it.  Without it, we continue to let the incumbent manager guide how we play and the players we buy, leaving us with the need to overhaul the squad each time the head coaches changes.   A much more costly model in the long run, which is only likely to bring short term success at best.

I do view the role as an extra (and costly) salary that could be used elsewhere. We've managed thus far and I see no reason to fix what isn't broken at this point in time.

[Red Skin]

2 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Yes definitely. It’s been discussed many times on OTIB over the last four years or so. 
the lack of one could really be the missing piece of the jigsaw, get the right coach/manager for match day etc., and the DoF to sort out the rest.

I’ve felt for a long time that there isn’t the right balance between “trading” players and building the right team. Perhaps there has been reasons for that, building financial stability etc., but a lot of money has been spent, With too much reliance on stats etc., it seems unbalanced.

To me, we missed two definite times where the team had the momentum to succeed and we needed to push on for promotion and the club stalled. Perhaps with the right leadership those moments will become more frequent.

This is the crux for me.   MA has financial accountability and we need someone with accountability for football that is at a similar level in the organisation.   

It is not enough for MA to be a 'football' man if his job description and performance is largely measured by financial success.   

If he has responsibility for both financial success and footballing success this must be extremely conflicting for him to balance.  The temptation will surely be to veer toward financial success which is far easier to measure than to developing the club's footballing philosophy and identity which doesn't always align to success in the table in the short term.

[Red Skin]

14 minutes ago, BigTone said:

I do view the role as an extra (and costly) salary that could be used elsewhere. We've managed thus far and I see no reason to fix what isn't broken at this point in time.

Are you happy with the football you have seen in the last two years?   

I don't subscribe to improvement being by league position alone.  (In that sense I had some sympathy for SO'D).

We need to build sustainable model that does not rely on any single head coach to achieve using 'his way' alone.   

Ultimately I want to see good football and long-term success.  Unless you employ an Alex Ferguson (as if there were loads knocking about) investing so much responsibility and power in any single coach will ultimately fail and repeat the cycle again of new philosophy, squad overhauls, and a thoroughly confused academy that has little hope of success.    

[Red Skin]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Whether we need a DoF or not, I would prefer there to be more “football men” involved.

I’ve said plenty of times before SL is not a football man.

Mark Ashton isn’t a football man.  He might’ve been a young pro at West Brom, but he’s a negotiator and football administrator and operations manager.  He knows the business of football but he doesn’t know football.  He may be CEO and be responsible for the Department that undertake Talent ID, but he isn’t a skilled Talent Identifier. 

Been looking at Wigan’s set up as a result of the news that Cook has been interviewed:

One of the Directors: Joe Royle - a football man (well known to City fans)

Head of Recruitment: Chris Brass - a football man, who played and managed mainly in the lower reaches of the league.

I feel we are missing someone to bridge that gap between the business of football and football the business.

Your last point is essentially is my view too.  Traditionally I would see this as the role of a DoF amongst other things.

Having football men involved is not enough unless they have accountability for delivery the footballing side and empowered to make it happen.

Would love someone in the mould of Glen Hoddle, Terry Venables who know who football should be played.   I'd even settle for a clairvoyant to channel Johan Cruyff right now!! 

[Monkeh]

No i don't think we do, we need a technical director or head scout, let ashton do the money let a head scout lead the analysis and identification 

[Red Skin]

1 hour ago, John Galley said:

Spoke to Peter Reid on Wigan’s last visit here and he said they love Bristol and always look forward to visiting.

Probably likes the zoo.

[Red Skin]

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

No i don't think we do, we need a technical director or head scout, let ashton do the money let a head scout lead the analysis and identification 

Someone accountable for football is really what I think we need.  Technical director or DoF, call you what you like, but someone to protect the footballing aspect of the club from the short term financial pressures would be welcomed. 

[22A]

Dunno about a D of F, but we do need a Doctor; https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/vacancy-bristol-city-club-doctor/

 

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Red Skin said:

Isn't that the essence of the problem.  Said coach leaves, and the next coach wants 'his' players that fit the way he wants to play?

I think the problem arose when LJ decided he wanted more physicality in the boxes. He was trying to evolve his high energy busy bee pressing game into a watered down more physical version.

He just couldn't find a consistent formula.

We had an identity...it got lost.

The past season we've played hopeful football rather than structured.

I look at Leeds and Brentford...they have an identity in the way they play and recruit well to play to that identity.

We identified individuals that were good at what they do then tried molding them into something else.

Massengo and Nagy are prime examples of that, as is Famara...who over two seasons has had to adapt away from his natural game.

We have talent...but I do feel for any coach coming in and trying to get them all to work as a successful unit.

[BigTone]

53 minutes ago, Red Skin said:

Are you happy with the football you have seen in the last two years?   

I don't subscribe to improvement being by league position alone.  (In that sense I had some sympathy for SO'D).

We need to build sustainable model that does not rely on any single head coach to achieve using 'his way' alone.   

Ultimately I want to see good football and long-term success.  Unless you employ an Alex Ferguson (as if there were loads knocking about) investing so much responsibility and power in any single coach will ultimately fail and repeat the cycle again of new philosophy, squad overhauls, and a thoroughly confused academy that has little hope of success.    

No, not particularly but I don't see a DoF as being necessary at this point in time or a quick fix.

[IAmNick]

4 hours ago, spudski said:

This is exactly what I think too.

We have a Coach and coaches...and we have a football negotiator in MA who uses technology to find talent...and a team under him identifying that talent.

A coach says what type of player we want, they crunch the numbers so to speak, identify and find players that tick boxes.

What stands out to me, is that we have brought in players that are individually good at what they do. They obviously ticked certain boxes. However...we often played like a bunch of individuals. Not as a team...the individuals don't compliment one another. They aren't on the same wavelength...they play as individuals not as a team. It's totally disjointed.

A footballing brain will see that. Imo it's something glaringly obvious and needs addressing.

How often have we seen new signings come in and show their individual brilliance only for it to quickly diminish once 'structured' into a system that doesn't suit them.

The last two seasons we've played as individuals trying to fit...it's often like oil on water. Hence so many players and formation changes and players playing in un natural positions

Surely you can't put the fact that our players have played as individuals and not a team at Ashton's door. Isn't that the coaches job?

Ashton provides the players. The coach(es) train them to play as a successful team.

Of course if Ashton is providing a load of manure there's only so much the coaches can do, but I don't think that's the case personally. If we've brought in good individuals, then why aren't the coaches able to get them playing as a team? Is that a recruitment problem, or a coaching problem?

If they're being provided the wrong tools to do the job, in my mind they should be saying so to Ashton - maybe they have, we don't know. But at what point are the coaches held accountable if they can always just say "well we got the wrong players in"? They should be experts at getting a group of individuals to play as a team, that's what they're paid handsomely to do.

If we're expecting Ashton to provide a number of high quality players who are already ready to go as a team then I'll apply for the coach job myself!

Maybe I've misunderstood?

[Red Skin]

23 minutes ago, BigTone said:

No, not particularly but I don't see a DoF as being necessary at this point in time or a quick fix.

Fair enough.  I certainly don't see it a quick fix, anything but.  The current model isn't working so something fundamental needs to change for me.

[Davefevs]

5 hours ago, spudski said:

This is exactly what I think too.

We have a Coach and coaches...and we have a football negotiator in MA who uses technology to find talent...and a team under him identifying that talent.

A coach says what type of player we want, they crunch the numbers so to speak, identify and find players that tick boxes.

What stands out to me, is that we have brought in players that are individually good at what they do. They obviously ticked certain boxes. However...we often played like a bunch of individuals. Not as a team...the individuals don't compliment one another. They aren't on the same wavelength...they play as individuals not as a team. It's totally disjointed.

A footballing brain will see that. Imo it's something glaringly obvious and needs addressing.

How often have we seen new signings come in and show their individual brilliance only for it to quickly diminish once 'structured' into a system that doesn't suit them.

The last two seasons we've played as individuals trying to fit...it's often like oil on water. Hence so many players and formation changes and players playing in un natural positions

 

4 hours ago, City oz said:

Not another one on 1/2 a million pounds a year. There are others at the club making sacrifices at the moment. To me it sounds like a role not required at the club especially if the criteria does not include football club experience.

I thinks it more that we need a football person in the Recruitment set up.  We’ve got rid of football people like Mervyn Day in the scouting dept too.

Wouldn’t cost £0.5m either.  Chris Brass at Wigan is probably on a fifth of that.  That’s one Robbie Cundy transfer fee (not even counting his wages).  Seriously, going off track, what kind of a signing was that?

[Red7]

I would say that we need a Director Of Football. Particularly since we're not likely to have a manager or a head coach any time soon.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

I think the problem arose when LJ decided he wanted more physicality in the boxes. He was trying to evolve his high energy busy bee pressing game into a watered down more physical version.

He just couldn't find a consistent formula.

We had an identity...it got lost.

The past season we've played hopeful football rather than structured.

I look at Leeds and Brentford...they have an identity in the way they play and recruit well to play to that identity.

We identified individuals that were good at what they do then tried molding them into something else.

Massengo and Nagy are prime examples of that, as is Famara...who over two seasons has had to adapt away from his natural game.

We have talent...but I do feel for any coach coming in and trying to get them all to work as a successful unit.

Exactly Spud.  He “stumbled” on a 4411(460) as follows:

Fielding

Wright / Flint / Baker / Magnússon

Brownhill / Smith / Pack / Bryan

Paterson / Reid

4 of those cogs left in the summer.

The suspension of Diedhiou meant he could go with Weimann with either Paterson or Taylor at the start of the season too.

Reid - I can see the logic with Weimann

Bryan - surely O’Dowda or Eliasson will emerge

Magnússon - got Kelly coming through, and we’ll loan Dasilva.  Kelly a CB playing LB, logic again

Flint - Webster (and Kalas!!)

Plus improving the squad:

Wright - gets Hunt (Pisano still around too).

Recruitment wise it was a decent summer.  Unfortunately (imho) LJ got spooked by the West Brom defeat (2-4) where we got exposed.  At that point, a decent summer recruitment got thrown out the window because he changed the way we played after that.  We were third before that game, had won 4 on the trot (QPR, Swansea, Blackburn, Sheffield Utd....no mugs in that group).  He did have another really good run, but then fell away.

After the West Brom game, he just needed to accept we’d lost a tough away game, had been poor on the night, but out came through sledgehammer.  An experienced football person around him, might have told him to not over react.  That’s what he missed.

 

 

[Cowshed]

13 hours ago, Red Skin said:

I've made this point in a couple of threads, but thought it might warrant separate consideration (or maybe not?)

Seems to me that our club identity or ethos was really something that LJ was defining.   For any manager/ head coach to define this just seems plain wrong.  Managers come and go.

The club identity should drive recruitment/sale of players.  Youth development.  And also determine which coach/manager is best suited to deliver it.

Without this role at the club, the danger is that when it's left to the manager/coach to define we lurch from one identity to another as each manager brings in their own philosophy.  And we need to overhaul the squad and re-educate coaches across all levels of the club to align to the new managers vision.

If it hasn't been LJ defining the club identity, then who at the club was qualified to do so?  (Yes, I appreciate some believe LJ wasn't either).  If LJ has laid this down who is qualified to explain it to prospective managers?

I think we are missing a role that defines this and one empowered to protect the long-term vision against short-term financial gain.  This needs to inform recruitment both players and coaches including the head coach. 

What do you all think?

It is not wrong if it is part of the clubs aims. Managers/Head coaches do take part in establishing principles at clubs and a framework to work with. These individuals can later leave but the identity, its keystones remain in place. The recruitment of the next Manager/Head coach is then recruited to fit the existing identity, and its philosophy and strategies.

Would a Director of football benefit Bristol City? Yes if the intent is to establish a long term playing identity allied to youth development - There has to be individuals guided by the long term to oversee the implementation of strategies and philosophies who are not driven by short term results. 

In regards to a playing identity. You can't lurch from an identity to another. Styles change frequently, an identity doesn't. Identity is underpinned by the points you highlight and if it is not being followed, if it is not being worked towards its not an identity.

 

[Benji]

A Sporting Director/ Director of Football/ Technical Director is absolutely crucial for the club to progress. Let's face it though it will not happen with the narcissist Ashton overseeing everything. Is it any coincidence that the top four teams all had someone in this role: Leeds - Victor Orta,  West Brom - Luke Dowling, Brentford - Rasmus Ankersen and Phil Giles and Fulham - Javi Pereira and even Swansea until Leon Britton resigned recently. 

You only have to look at Stuart Webber at Norwich to see the success he has had overseeing football strategy, recruitment, style of play, scouting, etc which resulted in promotion. He did the same at Huddersfield which resulted in promotion. The concern for me is there is no forward planning and this has been shown with it taking over 3 weeks and counting since Johnson left and no appointment. 7/8 out of 10 clubs who remove their head coach/manager know who they are appointing to replace them. Not this club, Ashton and Jon Lansdown will not oversee promotion to the Premier League. 

[BritAbroad]

I personally think that the Director of Football role is something that the club needs to look at and implement, but they need to make sure that they get the right person, and I think that could be the issue.

 

I think there needs someone who sees the overall picture of who we are recruiting. why we are recruiting them, and how they fit in with the players we currently have.

[22A]

4 hours ago, Red Skin said:

Isn't that the essence of the problem.  Said coach leaves, and the next coach wants 'his' players that fit the way he wants to play?

OK then, offer a challenge to the Manager of Barcelona, Real  Madrid, Bayern Munich or Liverpool to come and really prove their managerial  techniques! 

[Leaning To One Side]

7 hours ago, spudski said:

This is exactly what I think too.

We have a Coach and coaches...and we have a football negotiator in MA who uses technology to find talent...and a team under him identifying that talent.

A coach says what type of player we want, they crunch the numbers so to speak, identify and find players that tick boxes.

What stands out to me, is that we have brought in players that are individually good at what they do. They obviously ticked certain boxes. However...we often played like a bunch of individuals. Not as a team...the individuals don't compliment one another. They aren't on the same wavelength...they play as individuals not as a team. It's totally disjointed.

A footballing brain will see that. Imo it's something glaringly obvious and needs addressing.

How often have we seen new signings come in and show their individual brilliance only for it to quickly diminish once 'structured' into a system that doesn't suit them.

The last two seasons we've played as individuals trying to fit...it's often like oil on water. Hence so many players and formation changes and players playing in un natural positions

Couldn't agree more Spud....nailed it.  We look like complete strangers rather than a cohesive team

[Red Skin]

2 hours ago, Benji said:

A Sporting Director/ Director of Football/ Technical Director is absolutely crucial for the club to progress. Let's face it though it will not happen with the narcissist Ashton overseeing everything. Is it any coincidence that the top four teams all had someone in this role: Leeds - Victor Orta,  West Brom - Luke Dowling, Brentford - Rasmus Ankersen and Phil Giles and Fulham - Javi Pereira and even Swansea until Leon Britton resigned recently. 

You only have to look at Stuart Webber at Norwich to see the success he has had overseeing football strategy, recruitment, style of play, scouting, etc which resulted in promotion. He did the same at Huddersfield which resulted in promotion. The concern for me is there is no forward planning and this has been shown with it taking over 3 weeks and counting since Johnson left and no appointment. 7/8 out of 10 clubs who remove their head coach/manager know who they are appointing to replace them. Not this club, Ashton and Jon Lansdown will not oversee promotion to the Premier League. 

Thanks for enlightening me on those teams.   It feels like it's sorely needed for City, but I hadn't appreciated it was already embedded in those clubs, all of whom are vying for promotion each season regardless of who is head coach.  No brainer for me.

[Red Bill]

Do we need a Director of Football?

No

[Davefevs]

@Seneca the Youngermade me realise the person we are missing is Brian Tinnion.  Properly in charge of Talent ID....not just loans.

He will understand the needs of the head coach, and will be the man to keep both MA and the head-coach honest.

[MATT BCFC]

We need one definitely. Our only plan currently seems to be get young talented players and then sell them on. 

To make that plan work you need to have a philosophy of play and get players who can play in that system. 

For example if you want to play out from the back you sign young keepers and defenders who have the ability to do this. 

Under LJ we had a number of talented young players but he clearly had no intention of playing them as they didn't fit his style. We could quite easily be in the same position with the next manager. 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Red Skin said:

I've made this point in a couple of threads, but thought it might warrant separate consideration (or maybe not?)

Seems to me that our club identity or ethos was really something that LJ was defining.   For any manager/ head coach to define this just seems plain wrong.  Managers come and go.

The club identity should drive recruitment/sale of players.  Youth development.  And also determine which coach/manager is best suited to deliver it.

Without this role at the club, the danger is that when it's left to the manager/coach to define we lurch from one identity to another as each manager brings in their own philosophy.  And we need to overhaul the squad and re-educate coaches across all levels of the club to align to the new managers vision.

If it hasn't been LJ defining the club identity, then who at the club was qualified to do so?  (Yes, I appreciate some believe LJ wasn't either).  If LJ has laid this down who is qualified to explain it to prospective managers?

I think we are missing a role that defines this and one empowered to protect the long-term vision against short-term financial gain.  This needs to inform recruitment both players and coaches including the head coach. 

What do you all think?

More a case of: 'Can the get make a ****ing decision on who's going to be the manager?'