It ought to be very simple. There should be should be an investment transfer budget on which the DoF has the final say because his job is to make the squad stable in the long run. The coach should have the final say in tactical transfers to correct any short-term deficiencies in the squad. There is no reason in the world for the two to have disagreements because they are responsible for different things.
I think that if you insist on having a DOF, his function should be to control the budget that he has been given by the board. To negotiate the transfer fee, the wages, etc. but NOT to decide on which players to choose. He should be given a target by the coach. If that target is within budget, let it be his job to go and get him. At Spurs, Levy controls all the financial negotiations. So, presumably, Baldini's function is just that - glorified scout. But with the added twist of deciding which players to buy.
Not sure if anyone else spotted this, but Damien Comolli is saying that our scouting program is a joke: http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnatio...otspur-scouting-damien-comolli-joke-criticism He'd know, since he was a major part of it for several seasons - yet neglects to mention that minor detail...
What would worry me if I were a Spurs' fan is that a number of the signings with the Bale money appear to have been identified as long term prospects for the club regardless of who is manager. That suggests Baldini is having a greater say on transfer policy than any manager. Players like Lamela, Eriksen and Chirches have been recruited on the basis of potential for the future - cost effective signings if the club gets five years from each of them. But with changes of manager, these players' development is now in the hands of a manager who, by many accounts, doesn't rate them too highly and would prefer to bring in his own signings. The club baulks at this idea because the DoF's judgement is that they are future stars and almost £50M was invested on them, which wouldn't be recouped in transfers if they were sold in the next window. It's not a very happy state of affairs if a manager is left with players he doesn't rate, but has to soldier on with what he's got. If this is the situation, it's not good.
In any other organisation it would be quite unreasonable for an incoming manager to want to sell a large chunk of the organisation's resources at a discount to book value to replace them with similar resources he thought were better value. Its like someone taking charge at BA and selling all the Boeings and buying Airbuses instead! I don't know why a football coach should think he was an exception to this rule. Poch knew who the players were when he took the job. If he told Levy they were no good then, then you have a case. If he said he could work with them then he ought to deliver on his promise.
Exactly highlights my problem with our current set-up. If Baldini starts foisting his own choice of players on Pochettino, then it's just going to get worse.
I second this. In my view the role of a DoF is to sit between the head coach and chairman. He advises the chairman on what players to invest in who would further complement the style of play the DoF endorses (with the help of the coach too), and helps select coaches when needed who also fit that style. We certainly haven't had consistency in the latter (assuming Baldini was bought in to work with an AVB-style manager we have since had Sherwood and Pochettino, two very different managers in style) and regarding the players, while it is too early to call time on many, early signs are not looking promising. Are Baldini and his scouting team simply very hit and miss at finding players? Is Levy going for cut-price alternatives to the players Baldini (and Pochettino through him) are asking for? Is Baldini buying players to sell on for profit, not necessarily to provide solutions to our problems on the pitch? Or is Levy simply bypassing the middle man? We'll probably never know. Either way, and whether you view the role of a DoF as I do or not, its clearly not working in an immediate sense, and its another thing to the ever growing list of problems at Spurs.
In many businesses it works to bring in a hired gun to work with the staff already in place, but sport is different. The relationship between a manager/coach and his players is complex and there are many facets to it, but what always seems to be essential is that there is mutual trust and respect. The best managers are often seen as father figures - in a position of authority but caring, encouraging and supportive. Most footballers are young men with little life experience, often in a foreign country where language and culture can be barriers. The last thing a young player needs is to feel unwanted or undervalued. And it can be very divisive to the team/squad as a whole if there are tensions between the manager and players. We've seen how one sour relationship can prove very disruptive in sport - Balotelli, Pietersen etc. Look at Mickelson's comments after the Ryder Cup. It shows how important it is for the manager/coach to have the right players who are confident in his methods.
I agree with the logic but you've got the cause and effect the wrong way around. The principle skill a coach needs is to get the best out of any set of players he has at his disposal. If he can only work with a set of players of his own choosing then he is not a coach!
Yes, but club managers in football can select the players they work with; they are not limited to the players in situ as a school coach or even an international manager might be. Some managers can work with anyone and some players will respond positively to any manager, but it's human nature that different people will see different strengths and weaknesses in others. It's never going to be constructive in football to have a manager working with some players who ideally he wouldn't see fitting into his plans. As others have mentioned elsewhere, Mata is a very capable footballer, but he didn't fit into Mourinho's plans because it was perceived that he didn't have the desire to work his socks off and do the hard work when his team didn't have the ball. It was mutually beneficial to both that he move on. My view is that it's important that the manager is happy with all the players at his disposal for the reasons mentioned in an earlier post. A DoF complicates this arrangement - and as appears to be the case at Spurs at this point in time, there can be a detrimental effect.
While a coach does need to get the best from a set of players PS I think he is also entitled to ask for players to be bought in who are better at performing how he wants than the players he has. He will be limited by the ability of the players but even more so by the attitude of them, especially when a coach like Pochettino wants a high intensity game that the players seem to be unwilling/unable to deliver on. Mourinho has won pretty much everything going in the game but he isn't necessarily one of the greatest coaches, he knows how to buy the right players though and has pretty much always been able to do so. He wouldn't have a chance at Spurs though IMO, not with Levy at the helm. We haven't signed a coach who can make do with what he has all the time, and to an extent this is a good thing because there appears to be too much wrong with the squad for another manager who can muddle his way through a couple more seasons of upper-mid table finishes to be an acceptable appointment in terms of long term success. Adaptation is an important skill but right now we need firm direction through a thorough rebuilding process. I believe that as long as Pochetitno is allowed the chance to build (and that we keep a hold of our best few players in the process) that we will come out of this in a stronger position than we are now. I very much doubt however that the process will be allowed to run its course.
Klinsman is backing him,reported in the press today,we have to stop this keep on sacking the manager if we want any sort of success
My view remains that I've rarely seen a coach actually make that work in practice. Look at now: Wenger and Rodgers have both spent more than Spurs over the last two seasons but they still don't have a team that performs better than last year's one. What has the club got from giving them a free hand. My hero Nicholson only signed 5 of the double winning side and the team's results actually got worse and worse from that point on as the team progressed towards being fully his choices.
Yes, always wondered why we won so little after 1962 domestically. Only FA Cup in 67, although we were very strong for all the 60's and very early seventies - finishing 3rd behind Arsenal's double winners for example.
Ok, no manager is always going to get it 100% right. But, I'll bet managers like Fergie, Mourinho especially, have done a far better job for their respective clubs than had they been encumbered with a DOF. Re the side of the early 60's. Losing John White so tragically was a massive blow to both Nicholson and his team. He was integral to what made that side tick.
Spending money of course only works if you spend it on the right players, another thing we seem bad at doing. We're also bad at limiting the damage caused by these mis-spends.
I belive if John White hadn't been killed we would hve won the title a few more times,that's how much of a blow it was
