Someone said the other day that the term 'the model' is not used within the club. That makes sense, to them it's just running the club. The fans seem to use the term all the time though. There appears to be no real consensus as to what it really is and people assign all sorts of things, often things they don't like, to the 'model'. People seem massively hung up on the 'model', so let's have a look at it in detail. So what is the definition of the 'model'? The way I see it, it is the fundamental differences between KLD's regime and previous ownerships. Those differences are: the Director of Football/Head Coach system, as opposed to a Manager (let's call this, for arguments sake, the structural element), and; the policy of focusing on signing players that are below a certain age, have potential to be very good, but have maybe stalled in their careers slightly (e.g. Clarke, Roberts, Mundle). Let's call this, for ease of reference, the transfer policy. Beyond this, we don't know much more about the inner workings of the club. Rumour and gossip don't really count as a working knowledge of how the club operates, despite what some people like to think. Many of the assertions made about the 'model' can be disproved by the facts that exist in the public realm. Is the 'model' unusual? The structural element certainly is not. This set up is commonly used at European clubs and it makes sense that KLD would want to operate in that way as it is likely to be the structure that he is most familiar with. Many British clubs are moving towards a similar kind of set up but we tend to hear less about them. This is how Manchester Metropolitan University describe a Sporting Director/Director of Football: "Usually football sporting directors are responsible for a club’s overall philosophy, beginning with the youth team all the way up to the first team, as well as working with the head coach and CEO to identify transfer targets, coaches, discuss budgets, buy and sell players, and offer existing players new contracts." https://www.mmu.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/story/?id=16133#:~:text=Usually football sporting directors are,offer existing players new contracts. The transfer policy is essential a version of moneyball. Bring quality in for as little possible and then maximise the potential of that quality, occasionally selling a player or two for more than you brought them in for. It's maybe a bold approach but also a very responsible one from a financial point of view. Not everyone is doing things this way, so it's maybe slightly unusual but not unheard of- we all know about Borussia Dortmund. What is the purpose of the 'model'? If you look at the two most successful post-war teams in England, Liverpool and Man Utd, their success is built on continuity and an established identity. In Liverpool's case this was built on the 'Boot Room' era, with managers being promoted from within. In Man Utd's case success occurred in two sustained spells with very long-serving managers who were allowed time to build successful teams. The structural element of the 'model' is a way of ensuring this continuity. If you have a Sporting Director responsible for the club's philosophy (horrible word to use in terms of football), you are ensuring a consistent approach and culture that won't be ripped up if a manager/head coach leaves for whatever reason. If you look at Barcelona, they have for years followed an approach based on Cruyff's way of doing things and have consistently made appointments as Sporting Director and Coach on this basis. This is, of course, a romantic way of looking at things. More pragmatically, this is becoming the more normal way of doing things and means that, for once, SAFC isn't behind the times. The purpose of the transfer policy is quite obvious. Financial responsibility and getting value for money. What are the drawbacks of the model? Not every manager/coach will be happy working in this structure, especially the more old school types. It means we can probably rule out appointing people like Sam Allardyce, David Moyes, Roy Keane, Neil Warnock, despite the fact that most of them are good at their jobs and have good reputations within the game. The transfer policy means that we might have to wait a season or two for many of the signings to hit their peak. Some won't reach their potential. But that's not unusual; when we've had different transfer policies, not every signing has worked out, no matter how good people thought they might be. Will Grigg, anyone? Does the 'model' need to 'flex'? Well, how do we know it won't flex and hasn't already flexed? It's a myth that Head Coaches aren't allowed to bring their own people in. Of the three head coaches that KLD has appointed, only Beale didn't bring his own people in, and before he left he said he was thinking about it. Its also a myth that we don't sign 'experienced' players. Evans, Baath, Defoe, and Dack have all been signed since KLD has been involved and, although still quite young, Rusyn and Styles have played a good number of games at other clubs and have international experience. If you're going to operate to a budget though, you have to operate to a budget. Do people really want us to spend our way to promotion if it means putting the club's existence at risk? Would it have been worth blowing the budget on Kieffer Moore? Well, no- our players can't create chances for the forwards we have got. Should KLD spend his own money on transfers? That's also a no for me. He is, as the cliche goes, only the current custodian of the club. We don't want to be in debt to him if and when he decides he's had enough. Look how that turned out last time. Is the 'model' suitable for Sunderland? I've seen people say that the 'model' won't work up here or that the club need to appoint people who understand the area. What does this even mean? I've lived all round England and with some very slight differences in taste (people in the M62 corridor are strangely attached to Rugby League), people are people wherever you go. They have the same range of tastes, attitudes, ideas, fears, worries, and attachment to their football clubs the country over. People make out there are differences because the accents are slightly different or because people traditionally worked in different industries from region to region, but really people have more similarities than they do differences. Sadly, SAFC isn't a special club any more. We haven't really stood out from the morass of well-supported clubs who won things in the past for the last 90 years. So there's no great tradition that we're breaking by adopting the 'model'. Saying we're not willing to listen to or accept a Frenchman and some southerners makes it sound like people from the north-east are unfriendly and backward. Which we're certainly not. This attitude makes me really angry. And now the big one! Is the 'model' working? Yes, of course it is. Under KLD, we have seen consistent progress and a rapid rise from League 1 to being one of the biggest clubs in Championship again. Its not that long ago that the owner's policy was being lauded. https://sportsbyte.sunderland.ac.uk...adapted-club-policy-has-lead-them-to-success/ Yes, this season has been very disappointing but to expect there not to be any bumps in the road is unrealistic. Surely the people running the club will realise this. We need to realise this too. We've been spoilt under KLD so far and it's sad to see people start to turn against him and what the club are trying to do. Just because this season hasn't lived up to the excitement and success of last season doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the way that KLD is trying to do things. In summary In short, I think we need to stop thinking that the 'model' is some kind of strange arcane and intransigent way of running a football club. It's not, it's just that the new owner wants to run things with a coherent plan, in a modern, European style, in financially responsible manner. Maybe not spending millions on big name players isn't exciting enough for some people. Personally, I think this is more interesting.
Great thread and post. I can remember quite recently almost the entire support screaming that the Brentford model, and before that the Southampton model, was what we should be following ... ... now people are screaming that we should be spending money on established players. Brentford remind me of the old showbiz joke, 'After all these years of hard work, I became an overnight success.' Of course we'll take a few knocks, along the way, but we can't just abandon a strategy every time. It's great to demand action, because it makes you sound proactive and brave, but the club have created a plan and, although they'll react and adapt, I don't believe they'll waver even in the face of adversity. We've had a few bad months, so have Brentford ... it happens.
Great, well thought out, sensible post, the part above is the most important part for me though. We are being dragged kicking and screaming (at times) into the way football is these days. The Sky hype around Brighton probably doesn't help matters as it doesnt tell the full story of a data based approach that every club in the world would love access to, but cant have and a very very generous owner. If you dig enough, its not the "little old Brighton, arent they great and the future of football" narrative that Sky like you to believe. i believe and hope that only the way out extreme and hopefully tiny few fans that want the whole thing throwing out and SAFC to be backed by a Nation throwing money around is just that a tiny few that cant see that times are changing. You could have the richest owners in the world, its essentially useless now the FA are finally starting to use FFP rules for the purpose they were intended. The worst part about that is the FA have been so toothless until very recently the gap has grown to such a stupid level that it probably wont ever shrink unless there is a massive reset
Brentford is a good model to follow but if we are to be like them, then we need to start cashing in our top assets. They spent about 40 million on players in their last two seasons in the Championship but it was all financed through player sales like Watkins, Konsa and Maupay.
Totally agree. You've got a far better handle on FFP and football finances than I have but I think, for me, football is in such a bad state that most clubs can't compete without risking everything so it's really important for us to be trying to do it in a more responsible way.
I dont know about having a better handle, i just find it interesting and through digging into you get a far more balanced picture than the Sky narrative. It has also highlighted how much of a mess football really is financially and how much the FA and Premier League have let go since FFP first came about.
Good thread this! No name-calling or slagging-off...just thoughtful,intelligent assessments of the points under review. Well done,chaps.
Well put but to simple thinks out, it's essentially the moneyball approach to football business. Sell a player at 10m and then buy 5 at 2m. Rinse and repeat. Hoping to keep improving as you go. It's a big ask and a challenge. Ultimately, it's also cost cutting with anyone on higher wages offloaded, gooch and Prichard. Makes the clubs more sustainable but progress is tough to manage. That said, should make the balance sheet look better, and look better to anyone who is interested, when a club is going to be up for sale.
It certainly is a version of Moneyball, as I said in the original post. In reality though, the really revolutionary aspect of Moneyball (or Sabermetrics as its more properly known) is the uptake in data-driven decision making. This is now widespread in many sports, so the use of data analysis to inform decision making at SAFC isn't revolutionary. Policies that try to ensure expenditure is less than income, although part of the Moneyball approach, are not exclusive to it. They aren't revolutionary either, just basic, and responsible, economics. It does make winning things harder, at least in the short term, but it ensures the long term survival of the club. The way to succeed using this approach is to give it time and develop the systems and structures that allow it to work.
If that was actually the case I'd be dead against it ... ... one undeniable fact is that spending more money on signings and wages is no guarantee of success. It can also make failure much more dangerous, another fact no one can argue with. Spending £10 million, on a player, usually gets you a £10 million player because of the competition ... ... if spending £2 million buys you a £10 million player, like Clarke, Ballard, Bellingham I'd be happier with that even though it's more of a chance. People keep saying we won't be able to hang onto £10m players like Ballard but think we should be buying players of the same value. I'm not sure how that works tbh, how would we hang onto them and how much would their wages be.
Those are good points! I should maybe have thought through that comment a bit more. What really brings success is good scouting, running the club in a way that is attractive to players, good recruitment based on that scouting, good coaching, and, as has been demonstrated very well in other sports, a good culture within the organisation. Profligate spending without those things won't bring success but careful spending with those things has a good chance of bringing it.
Thanks, not often anyone says that to me I know people are frustrated because some of the young lads take time to find their feet ... ... but the fact they're given a chance means we can attract them in the first place. I truly believe Amad would've taken a chance on us if Man Utd had released him. Shame they paid such a lot for him, that's what's making them persevere imo.
The whole essence of the "Model" is really simple and it becomes easier to keep the players as you should be moving up the table / leagues. I think what is throwing it for some is that we appear to already have certain players replacements here which is not the normal way teams have done it. For example - Ballard goes on his way in the summer, Seelt (potential is just as high if not higher than Ballards) comes into the team the Ballard money is then used to buy the Seelt replacement and also strengthen other areas of the squad. At some point costs will obviously increase be that in wages or in fees, you would like to think that when we reach that level our league position or performances would be enough to keep the good players
It's incredibly difficult unless you're owned by a state, Oligarch or a majorinvestment group. So many clubs think they've cracked it and can 'push on' such as Leeds, Brentford, Burnley, Brighton, etc. I said, when Leicester won the title, they'd be relegated and that the 'Southampton model' would collapse ... not difficult predictions tbf but they're now paying interest on a £80m MSD loan. We could all see Everton spending money they couldn't possibly have and now, even if they survive this season, can only spend again to try to stay up. Some of their first team in only just adequate and they'll probably have to sell Pickford, etc, to pay the £200m debt if the new 'owners' back out. Chelsea are finding out what reality looks like at last, they were never that big a club tbh. It's all insane and I'd rather not be involved tbh.
Great read Norton... For me, the club since KLD arrived has been transformed in to a functioning entity. But the big thing...for me...is the fans have their club back and for many are proud to support our team again after many years of mismanagement. My only caveat is we should have a small degree of flexibility built in to this business plan...If we need ( and god knows we do) a striker, then we should take a small risk and pay some money to secure a player who can hit the ground running for the Championship. Other than that..I am pleased with where the club (in general) is going. That said we urgently need to halt our current form. Tonight would be a great start to that.
great post. I have no problem with “the model”. My problem is with how we are executing it. What we want to do is similar to many other clubs, but actually the profile of player we are signing is much younger. It’s almost like we’ve tried to run before we can walk (in that we are signing lots of high potential players too early in our cycle, before we have a “set” first team). This is the middle ground between “we need experience” and our current approach. I want to see us go out and sign more young players, but with much more first team experience. Like Ballard and Clarke, rather than Mayenda and Hemir for example. Hopefully in the summer with a lot more money to spend, that’s what we get.
