BRISTOL86 Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I don't know why, but the term head coach just doesn't sit well with me. Call me old fashioned but I like the person in charge of team selection etc to be called a MANAGER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WithywoodRed Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Couldn't agree more mate. Don't know the difference between the two myself but ''head coach'' doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 To me it just sounds like it has no authority. May as well be called 'footballing assistant'. Manager is the widely recognised term for the position, so just use it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portishead Puffin Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 JL claims that the long term plan sits in place whether there is a new "head coach" or not. I am not sure I believe that myself, but it suggests that the duties are only those that concern the first team squad and nothing else. Presumably a Manager would have more say in the structure as a whole, right down to youth level. The reason I have trouble with that is that there have been times when new people have been brought in and it appears that SO'D has had influence in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 JL claims that the long term plan sits in place whether there is a new "head coach" or not. I am not sure I believe that myself, but it suggests that the duties are only those that concern the first team squad and nothing else. Presumably a Manager would have more say in the structure as a whole, right down to youth level. The reason I have trouble with that is that there have been times when new people have been brought in and it appears that SO'D has had influence in that. JL and 'long term plan'. How ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I've posted elsewhere wondering about this. If we are making an appointment but keeping the pillars that are Burt & co then we are looking for a head coach aren't we, this must rule out quite a few candidates as its a lesser/different role. People like Holloway (thankfully) would want complete control I would think. Also what happens if we appoint a head coach then Sod gets a job and lures his staff away. I know we will be compensated but then we might find ourselves replacing more staff. And the merry-go-round goes on. What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I've posted elsewhere wondering about this. If we are making an appointment but keeping the pillars that are Burt & co then we are looking for a head coach aren't we, this must rule out quite a few candidates as its a lesser/different role. People like Holloway (thankfully) would want complete control I would think. Also what happens if we appoint a head coach then Sod gets a job and lures his staff away. I know we will be compensated but then we might find ourselves replacing more staff. And the merry-go-round goes on. What a mess. Yep. Mess just about sums it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Head coach is just a terminology, he still picks the team, trains the player and makes important team decisions. Its a modern way of thinking, and im actually glad the club is keeping up with the times, all the top teams now employ 'head coaches'. All it basically means is he has a director of football, dealing with transfers, liaising with other clubs etc so the head coach can fully concentrate on team matters. There are only slight differences as above but a manger or head coach is just a title, its about what his team does on a Saturday that really matters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myol'man Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 They didn't like the total authority GJ enjoyed and don't want to let it happen again. Can you imagine Sir Alex Ferguson or Brian Clough being called head coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Head coach is just a terminology, he still picks the team, trains the player and makes important team decisions. Its a modern way of thinking, and im actually glad the club is keeping up with the times, all the top teams now employ 'head coaches'. All it basically means is he has a director of football, dealing with transfers, liaising with other clubs etc so the head coach can fully concentrate on team matters. There are only slight differences as above but a manger or head coach is just a title, its about what his team does on a Saturday that really matters! All the top teams? Pretty sure the likes of Wenger, Moyes (Ferguson before him), Mourinho are all 'managers' aren't they? Whilst I agree that the role is the role regardless of what it's called, I just like it to be called 'manager'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 All the top teams? Pretty sure the likes of Wenger, Moyes (Ferguson before him), Mourinho are all 'managers' aren't they? Whilst I agree that the role is the role regardless of what it's called, I just like it to be called 'manager'. Sorry I should have said top teams in Europe, im pretty sure barca, real, Bayern etc have 'head coaches', that's the way the club has gone and landsdown has said we are sticking with it, so whoever comes in will still be 'head coach' im afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I don't know why, but the term head coach just doesn't sit well with me. Call me old fashioned but I like the person in charge of team selection etc to be called a MANAGER. No, they don't. The head coach title means that when SOD went and his successor arrives he slots into an existing structure. No more hefty bills to pay off old staff or compensation to clubs so we can pull in others. It seems like you'd rather plunge us into further debt simply because you don't like the wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 As the money men take control, managers will be replaced by coaches. It reflects the way football is going. Ferguson was probably the last of the old style autocratic managers. The real autocrats now live on offshore islands and manage by remote control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Sorry I should have said top teams in Europe, im pretty sure barca, real, Bayern etc have 'head coaches', that's the way the club has gone and landsdown has said we are sticking with it, so whoever comes in will still be 'head coach' im afraid. Exactly - it's not working perfectly yet but I like the idea of having a structure at the club so that if the manager suddenly up and goes, there's still continuity rather than everything being torn up and starting again. It's how the likes of Bercelona, Real and Bayern are successful and how Swansea and West Brom managed to get themselves established in the Premier League. Football's changed a lot since the days of Clough (and even he struggled from 1983 - 1993 compared to what went before) and, whilst Wenger was never officially head coach, it was the days when David Dein carried out a lot of his responsibilities that saw Arsenal's biggest success. I don't want one man running everything - it's deeply unstable, especially with the high managerial turnover in the football league (and us especially) these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Sorry I should have said top teams in Europe, im pretty sure barca, real, Bayern etc have 'head coaches', that's the way the club has gone and landsdown has said we are sticking with it, so whoever comes in will still be 'head coach' im afraid. Love the way you compared us to the top teams in Europe,get in there me babber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 No, they don't. The head coach title means that when SOD went and his successor arrives he slots into an existing structure. No more hefty bills to pay off old staff or compensation to clubs so we can pull in others. It seems like you'd rather plunge us into further debt simply because you don't like the wording. I think you've misunderstood me. I don't disagree with what the role entails or what the structure is. I just want the club to call the person in that role 'the manager'. My last three roles have been almost identical in terms of responsibility and duties performed but I've had three different job titles. I just like the man picking the team to be called the manager. Must be getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I think you've misunderstood me. I don't disagree with what the role entails or what the structure is. I just want the club to call the person in that role 'the manager'. My last three roles have been almost identical in terms of responsibility and duties performed but I've had three different job titles. I just like the man picking the team to be called the manager. Must be getting old. In that case I do misunderstand you, apologies. This thread seems all the more bizarre for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 In that case I do misunderstand you, apologies. This thread seems all the more bizarre for it. Well it makes a change from SOD out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Garlandinho Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I thought the term head coach was due to legal issues. I assume one of the managers was made redundant to save money, so obviously they can't advertise the position again as manager. That's why they originally did it at West Brom when they got rid of Di Matteo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliftonCliff Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I've posted elsewhere wondering about this. If we are making an appointment but keeping the pillars that are Burt & co then we are looking for a head coach aren't we, this must rule out quite a few candidates as its a lesser/different role. People like Holloway (thankfully) would want complete control I would think. Also what happens if we appoint a head coach then Sod gets a job and lures his staff away. I know we will be compensated but then we might find ourselves replacing more staff. And the merry-go-round goes on. What a mess. Dead right. I've also posted about this on other threads. The head coach role suited SOD right down to the ground, but it won't suit everybody. He was comfortable with the way various responsibilities were allocated, not least because he was very much a tracksuit man, a hands-on coach who preferred to spend the majority of his time on the training ground, and of course it also helped greatly that he knew Burt and Pemberton and had related to them in similar capacities before. He's happy working with young players, too - another essential plank in the strategy. However, it's all very well JL saying that the roles and structure remain the same even if the incumbents change, but a certain amount of that is corporate baloney and wishful thinking: in practice it may not prove so easy to maintain. It's been made to sound as though the blueprint was there first and then the men recruited to fit pre-defined roles, but actually I suspect that it was a bit more opportunistic than that. I think the individuals with particular skills became available and to some extent the jobs were designed to accomodate them, not solely the other way round. There has been, I feel, a certain amount of convenient re-writing of recent history here. There is no guarantee, as you say, that Pemberton and Burt won't move on to join SOD elsewhere. It's the kind of thing that happens often enough; in fact, it's commonplace. Our far-sighted board will then find out the hard way how much appetite there is among established, experienced managers to become head coaches at clubs where there is a Director of Football role in place and distinct limitations on the autonomy of the coach, particularly with regard to recruitment. In principle, the strategy sounds great and in many ways I'm all for it, as are most people on OTIB, as far as I can judge, but it also sounds suspiciously like something that has been dreamed up without the necessary research as to its viability in L2. It's not really part of the culture of the game in this country, especially at our level. Have we been to other clubs that are structured this way to see how it works, and have we canvassed informed opinion withing the game as to whether existing managers would be willing to operate within such a framework? Knowing how methodical and diligent our esteemed board have shown themselves to be, I think we can all guess the probable answers to those questions. And it doesn't help when you trumpet far and wide your unshakeable commitment to stability, continuity and long-termism whilst simultaneously sacking the very first manager to have served under this new enlightened regime after he's spent only 11 months in the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted December 2, 2013 Report Share Posted December 2, 2013 I don't know why, but the term head coach just doesn't sit well with me. Call me old fashioned but I like the person in charge of team selection etc to be called a MANAGER. Couldn't agree more mate. Don't know the difference between the two myself but ''head coach'' doesn't seem right. I believe the official difference is the Head Coach gets to wear a track suit and get his trainers all muddy like and the Manager wears a suit and tie and polished Charles Church's. Simples really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliftonCliff Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Dead right. I've also posted about this on other threads. The head coach role suited SOD right down to the ground, but it won't suit everybody. He was comfortable with the way various responsibilities were allocated, not least because he was very much a tracksuit man, a hands-on coach who preferred to spend the majority of his time on the training ground, and of course it also helped greatly that he knew Burt and Pemberton and had related to them in similar capacities before. He's happy working with young players, too - another essential plank in the strategy. However, it's all very well JL saying that the roles and structure remain the same even if the incumbents change, but a certain amount of that is corporate baloney and wishful thinking: in practice it may not prove so easy to maintain. It's been made to sound as though the blueprint was there first and then the men recruited to fit pre-defined roles, but actually I suspect that it was a bit more opportunistic than that. I think the individuals with particular skills became available and to some extent the jobs were designed to accomodate them, not solely the other way round. There has been, I feel, a certain amount of convenient re-writing of recent history here. There is no guarantee, as you say, that Pemberton and Burt won't move on to join SOD elsewhere. It's the kind of thing that happens often enough; in fact, it's commonplace. Our far-sighted board will then find out the hard way how much appetite there is among established, experienced managers to become head coaches at clubs where there is a Director of Football role in place and distinct limitations on the autonomy of the coach, particularly with regard to recruitment. In principle, the strategy sounds great and in many ways I'm all for it, as are most people on OTIB, as far as I can judge, but it also sounds suspiciously like something that has been dreamed up without the necessary research as to its viability in L2. It's not really part of the culture of the game in this country, especially at our level. Have we been to other clubs that are structured this way to see how it works, and have we canvassed informed opinion withing the game as to whether existing managers would be willing to operate within such a framework? Knowing how methodical and diligent our esteemed board have shown themselves to be, I think we can all guess the probable answers to those questions. And it doesn't help when you trumpet far and wide your unshakeable commitment to stability, continuity and long-termism whilst simultaneously sacking the very first manager to have served under this new enlightened regime after he's spent only 11 months in the job. I'm not usually in the habit of quoting my own posts, but I wrote this 24 hours ago and thought it worth "bumping" it, because it seems relevant to what I'm just now reading about the new appointment. The obvious things that stand out for me so far are: 1. The fact that SC has been made manager, not head coach, which relates directly to what I said yesterday. What is this saying, then, about the existing structure, and where does it leave Pemberton and, more particularly, Burt? We don't know, of course, because nobody from the board has seen fit to appear in public to explain it. (I agree with the general astonishment, by the way, that we've just unveiled a new manager without a representative of the board anywhere in sight.) 2. What are the implications of SC's initial remarks about his preferred playing style? What happens to the possession-based game that SOD has spent most of this year instilling into the players - will that survive? The answers will come on the pitch and I'm as willing as anyone to wait and see, and to give the man a chance, but I do wonder if the development of the younger players may be disrupted by a change of approach. The likes of Reid and Bryan have been accustomed to playing a certain way and may now have to adapt to an expectation that they should get the ball forward much more quickly (which may be taken as respectful terminology for a style of football that is often described in more derogatory language.) 3. Also on the much-vaunted theme of stability/continuity/slow, patient development, blah blah, I share the unease at the way decisions have been arrived at, first to sack SOD, and now to appoint a manager within days without any apparent attempt to test the strength of the field of potentially available candidates by a formal advertisment - shortlisting - interview - selection process. As others have asked, what happened to due diligence? (And isn't Keith Dawe a recruitment expert....?) I don't want to be cast into the same category as the ranters who are dismissing the bloke before he's started work, or the defectors who are withdrawing their support - I am neither of those - but these are legitimate questions and I have a strong feeling of deep disquiet at the way this crucial week in the club's history has been handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted December 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 Couldn't agree more. I genuinely fear for the club and it's 'direction' for the first time in a long long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.