Director of Football

[irblinx]

I think much of the reaction against directors of football is overplayed. In England, they never get any credit, but they get all of the blame when a signing doesn't work or a club with one does badly.

yeah, how did Dennis Wise get on at Newcastle ;-)

He illustrated Ted's point about ex managers perfectly!!

[Wonderwall]

I think much of the reaction against directors of football is overplayed. In England, they never get any credit, but they get all of the blame when a signing doesn't work or a club with one does badly.

yeah, how did Dennis Wise get on at Newcastle ;-)

He illustrated Ted's point about ex managers perfectly!!

ha ha true, never trusted those eyes!

[ronk]

I think much of the reaction against directors of football is overplayed. In England, they never get any credit, but they get all of the blame when a signing doesn't work or a club with one does badly.

yeah, how did Dennis Wise get on at Newcastle ;-)

Did it finish with him getting all of the blame (and then some) and Keegan walking away and gaining the support of the fans in an attempt to sue his old club into oblivion?


meh, bastard deserved it.

[cdncityfan]

The only times I have seen it work are outside Britain, where the director of football actually accepts their role as director of football and the manager does not spend the bulk of his time resenting having one. The rise of Olympique Lyonnais in France from a second division club to the summit of French football was achieved this way, where signings were done on a consensus basis between the director of football, the manager and (of course) the owner.

[Blackadder]

An ideal Director of Football for us would probably be Sven. That job would suit him down to the ground, plus he's pals with Mancini.

[edge275]

An ideal Director of Football for us would probably be Sven. That job would suit him down to the ground, plus he's pals with Mancini.

Yeah I definitely agree, and would be a good pulling factor as well. I bet he knows a few upcoming gems in that head of his.

[Blackadder]

An ideal Director of Football for us would probably be Sven. That job would suit him down to the ground, plus he's pals with Mancini.

Yeah I definitely agree, and would be a good pulling factor as well. I bet he knows a few upcoming gems in that head of his.

He is a legend at pulling.

[dazby]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

A good example of how it can work is Villareal. A club with meagre resources continually outperform.

[kinsey]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

A good example of how it can work is Villareal. A club with meagre resources continually outperform.

If my understanding of the role is right, I think Mark Hughes is a great shout as a Director of Football. From our experience of him, he was very good in the transfer market and everyone comments on how he was a good organiser of structures and facilities within the club. His perceived weakness was in dealing with match situations and tactics.

Despite the perception created by the title "Director", I always thought the role was more about planning/"managing"/organising structures and systems (non playing) within the club - basically doing the day to day donkey work that traditional managers used to do. Rather than being above a manager/coach in a pyramidal structure, they would be alongside them at best. The most talented/ambitious candidates would be attracted to the manager/coach role as that does not involve as much donkey work and is where the glory was. Perhaps someone like Marwood with no obvious desire to manage/coach is also an ideal candidate.

Another shout for the role would be someone like Jim Cassell...

[Dipstick]

Does it ever work out well? Can't think of the top of my head where it has worked effectively before but would love to hear of any success stories.

Mercer/Allison worked OK

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

A good example of how it can work is Villareal. A club with meagre resources continually outperform.

If my understanding of the role is right, I think Mark Hughes is a great shout as a Director of Football. From our experience of him, he was very good in the transfer market and everyone comments on how he was a good organiser of structures and facilities within the club. His perceived weakness was in dealing with match situations and tactics.

Despite the perception created by the title "Director", I always thought the role was more about planning/"managing"/organising structures and systems (non playing) within the club - basically doing the day to day donkey work that traditional managers used to do. Rather than being above a manager/coach in a pyramidal structure, they would be alongside them at best. The most talented/ambitious candidates would be attracted to the manager/coach role as that does not involve as much donkey work and is where the glory was. Perhaps someone like Marwood with no obvious desire to manage/coach is also an ideal candidate.

Another shout for the role would be someone like Jim Cassell...

While director of football participate on all that as well, his main duty especially in club like ours is identify targets, do all the sweet talking to get them sign and do actual deals. Depending on the club they have varying degree of freedom to do the actual deals. In some clubs they do everything, meaning manager one morning finds out new player in squad. Sometimes they discuss with managers about areas that need strengthening. In some cases manager hands list of players.

Hughes himself was mostly last part apart from Jo and Robinho transfers. I don't see anything in Hughes that would make him good Director of Football. He has no experience of doing deals with players, very little experience of financial side etc.

It's also bizarre that Hughes gets so much credit for infrastructure development, when we actually have director and under him whole team of people doing it. In nutshell, not everything that happens in club our size, positive or negative, is down to manager. We are no Boston United, you know.

[Alex Sapphire]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

A good example of how it can work is Villareal. A club with meagre resources continually outperform.

If my understanding of the role is right, I think Mark Hughes is a great shout as a Director of Football. From our experience of him, he was very good in the transfer market and everyone comments on how he was a good organiser of structures and facilities within the club. His perceived weakness was in dealing with match situations and tactics.

Despite the perception created by the title "Director", I always thought the role was more about planning/"managing"/organising structures and systems (non playing) within the club - basically doing the day to day donkey work that traditional managers used to do. Rather than being above a manager/coach in a pyramidal structure, they would be alongside them at best. The most talented/ambitious candidates would be attracted to the manager/coach role as that does not involve as much donkey work and is where the glory was. Perhaps someone like Marwood with no obvious desire to manage/coach is also an ideal candidate.

Another shout for the role would be someone like Jim Cassell...

While director of football participate on all that as well, his main duty especially in club like ours is identify targets, do all the sweet talking to get them sign and do actual deals. Depending on the club they have varying degree of freedom to do the actual deals. In some clubs they do everything, meaning manager one morning finds out new player in squad. Sometimes they discuss with managers about areas that need strengthening. In some cases manager hands list of players.

Hughes himself was mostly last part apart from Jo and Robinho transfers. I don't see anything in Hughes that would make him good Director of Football. He has no experience of doing deals with players, very little experience of financial side etc.

It's also bizarre that Hughes gets so much credit for infrastructure development, when we actually have director and under him whole team of people doing it. In nutshell, not everything that happens in club our size, positive or negative, is down to manager. We are no Boston U***d, you know.

dear me. Not satisfied with hounding him out, you now want to make sure he doesn't get any credit for anything.
If Brian fookin Marwood is qualified for DOF, then surely to God Hughsey could pull it off??

[Ted Hughes]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

A good example of how it can work is Villareal. A club with meagre resources continually outperform.

If my understanding of the role is right, I think Mark Hughes is a great shout as a Director of Football. From our experience of him, he was very good in the transfer market and everyone comments on how he was a good organiser of structures and facilities within the club. His perceived weakness was in dealing with match situations and tactics.

Despite the perception created by the title "Director", I always thought the role was more about planning/"managing"/organising structures and systems (non playing) within the club - basically doing the day to day donkey work that traditional managers used to do. Rather than being above a manager/coach in a pyramidal structure, they would be alongside them at best. The most talented/ambitious candidates would be attracted to the manager/coach role as that does not involve as much donkey work and is where the glory was. Perhaps someone like Marwood with no obvious desire to manage/coach is also an ideal candidate.

Another shout for the role would be someone like Jim Cassell...

While director of football participate on all that as well, his main duty especially in club like ours is identify targets, do all the sweet talking to get them sign and do actual deals. Depending on the club they have varying degree of freedom to do the actual deals. In some clubs they do everything, meaning manager one morning finds out new player in squad. Sometimes they discuss with managers about areas that need strengthening. In some cases manager hands list of players.

Hughes himself was mostly last part apart from Jo and Robinho transfers. I don't see anything in Hughes that would make him good Director of Football. He has no experience of doing deals with players, very little experience of financial side etc.

It's also bizarre that Hughes gets so much credit for infrastructure development, when we actually have director and under him whole team of people doing it. In nutshell, not everything that happens in club our size, positive or negative, is down to manager. We are no Boston U***d, you know.

Most of the problems were identified by Hughes & the solutions carried out to his specific instructions. He played for rags, Barca, Bayern & Chelsea so he will have a better knowledge than most about how a successful club is set up. As a director of football however he would be a manager's nightmare.

[kinsey]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

A good example of how it can work is Villareal. A club with meagre resources continually outperform.

If my understanding of the role is right, I think Mark Hughes is a great shout as a Director of Football. From our experience of him, he was very good in the transfer market and everyone comments on how he was a good organiser of structures and facilities within the club. His perceived weakness was in dealing with match situations and tactics.

Despite the perception created by the title "Director", I always thought the role was more about planning/"managing"/organising structures and systems (non playing) within the club - basically doing the day to day donkey work that traditional managers used to do. Rather than being above a manager/coach in a pyramidal structure, they would be alongside them at best. The most talented/ambitious candidates would be attracted to the manager/coach role as that does not involve as much donkey work and is where the glory was. Perhaps someone like Marwood with no obvious desire to manage/coach is also an ideal candidate.

Another shout for the role would be someone like Jim Cassell...

While director of football participate on all that as well, his main duty especially in club like ours is identify targets, do all the sweet talking to get them sign and do actual deals. Depending on the club they have varying degree of freedom to do the actual deals. In some clubs they do everything, meaning manager one morning finds out new player in squad. Sometimes they discuss with managers about areas that need strengthening. In some cases manager hands list of players.

Hughes himself was mostly last part apart from Jo and Robinho transfers. I don't see anything in Hughes that would make him good Director of Football. He has no experience of doing deals with players, very little experience of financial side etc.

It's also bizarre that Hughes gets so much credit for infrastructure development, when we actually have director and under him whole team of people doing it. In nutshell, not everything that happens in club our size, positive or negative, is down to manager. We are no Boston U***d, you know.

We all know Hughes deserves no credit for anything. Ever. You have told us many times.

Just humour me here and give me a serious answer - what football job would you give him, bearing in mind his playing experience in 3 of the top leagues in the world until his late thirties, his plentiful European matchs and cup final appearances, together with his 6/7 years in management, half of which was spent as an international boss, the other half in the toughest league in the world?

Would you trust him to coach the ball boys?!

You really are blinded by your hatred of Hughes if you can't accept that he has a successful track record in the transfer market! I am no Hughes licker and thought his time was up but that does not mean that I think he was a total disaster.

[kinsey]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

A good example of how it can work is Villareal. A club with meagre resources continually outperform.

If my understanding of the role is right, I think Mark Hughes is a great shout as a Director of Football. From our experience of him, he was very good in the transfer market and everyone comments on how he was a good organiser of structures and facilities within the club. His perceived weakness was in dealing with match situations and tactics.

Despite the perception created by the title "Director", I always thought the role was more about planning/"managing"/organising structures and systems (non playing) within the club - basically doing the day to day donkey work that traditional managers used to do. Rather than being above a manager/coach in a pyramidal structure, they would be alongside them at best. The most talented/ambitious candidates would be attracted to the manager/coach role as that does not involve as much donkey work and is where the glory was. Perhaps someone like Marwood with no obvious desire to manage/coach is also an ideal candidate.

Another shout for the role would be someone like Jim Cassell...

While director of football participate on all that as well, his main duty especially in club like ours is identify targets, do all the sweet talking to get them sign and do actual deals. Depending on the club they have varying degree of freedom to do the actual deals. In some clubs they do everything, meaning manager one morning finds out new player in squad. Sometimes they discuss with managers about areas that need strengthening. In some cases manager hands list of players.

Hughes himself was mostly last part apart from Jo and Robinho transfers. I don't see anything in Hughes that would make him good Director of Football. He has no experience of doing deals with players, very little experience of financial side etc.

It's also bizarre that Hughes gets so much credit for infrastructure development, when we actually have director and under him whole team of people doing it. In nutshell, not everything that happens in club our size, positive or negative, is down to manager. We are no Boston U***d, you know.

Most of the problems were identified by Hughes & the solutions carried out to his specific instructions. He played for rags, Barca, Bayern & Chelsea so he will have a better knowledge than most about how a successful club is set up. As a director of football however he would be a manager's nightmare.

To be fair though, it would never happen would it? You need a certain amount of chutzpah to want to be a manager and those that have it would not want to be in the shadows and working behind the scenes.

It could well be that given the suspicion of the role in this country from the managers community that only those without a managing background could really do it. Perhaps Marwood might be able to prove that the role can work in this country. And if he can't, get Jim Cassell in! If part of the role is about setting out the ethos of the club across all levels, I can think of few men better qualified.

[john@staustell]

Does it ever work out well? Can't think of the top of my head where it has worked effectively before but would love to hear of any success stories.

Mercer/Allison worked OK

No mate. It worked fine when Joe was manager and Big Mal was coach only. It all went tits up after that.

Marwood's appointment was greeted as some sort of coup for City when it happened. Heaven knows why, because we're not sure of his role here or before.

The point is that he seems to be going about his business, hopefully to the satisfaction of the owners, without attracting too much attention. Therefore if he is doing a smart job linking up Cook and the manager without attracting too many attacks on these web pages then something must be OK.

I'm sure Mancini is quite happy with the 'liberation' of a manager in England, isn't Inter one of those clubs where they say - 'we've just bought you so-and-so, get on and coach him'??

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

A good example of how it can work is Villareal. A club with meagre resources continually outperform.

If my understanding of the role is right, I think Mark Hughes is a great shout as a Director of Football. From our experience of him, he was very good in the transfer market and everyone comments on how he was a good organiser of structures and facilities within the club. His perceived weakness was in dealing with match situations and tactics.

Despite the perception created by the title "Director", I always thought the role was more about planning/"managing"/organising structures and systems (non playing) within the club - basically doing the day to day donkey work that traditional managers used to do. Rather than being above a manager/coach in a pyramidal structure, they would be alongside them at best. The most talented/ambitious candidates would be attracted to the manager/coach role as that does not involve as much donkey work and is where the glory was. Perhaps someone like Marwood with no obvious desire to manage/coach is also an ideal candidate.

Another shout for the role would be someone like Jim Cassell...

While director of football participate on all that as well, his main duty especially in club like ours is identify targets, do all the sweet talking to get them sign and do actual deals. Depending on the club they have varying degree of freedom to do the actual deals. In some clubs they do everything, meaning manager one morning finds out new player in squad. Sometimes they discuss with managers about areas that need strengthening. In some cases manager hands list of players.

Hughes himself was mostly last part apart from Jo and Robinho transfers. I don't see anything in Hughes that would make him good Director of Football. He has no experience of doing deals with players, very little experience of financial side etc.

It's also bizarre that Hughes gets so much credit for infrastructure development, when we actually have director and under him whole team of people doing it. In nutshell, not everything that happens in club our size, positive or negative, is down to manager. We are no Boston U***d, you know.

dear me. Not satisfied with hounding him out, you now want to make sure he doesn't get any credit for anything.
If Brian fookin Marwood is qualified for DOF, then surely to God Hughsey could pull it off??

Eh?

For as long as I have hole in my arse "God Hughsey" will not be director of football in Manchester City Football Club. That I'm 100% sure of.

And credit??? Why not give credit to hundreds of people who work for the Club, doing their job? You are giving Hughes all the credit for changes in infrastructure? So are you saying the club are lieing and this feller and his team is trying to steal credit from "god Hughesy"??

Jonathan Stemp
Chief Infrastructure Officer

One of the many new faces to arrive since Sheikh Mansour’s takeover at City in September of 2008, Jon is the man responsible for all property refurbishment, development and operational issues at the club.

He has already successfully overseen the many stunning changes to the Blues Carrington Training Centre and the facilities in an around the City of Manchester Stadium, changes that have hugely benefitted both Blues supporters and employees.

Forty-five years of age and married with three children Jon is a keen all around sportsman who lists surfing and rugby as his main interests outside watching City win.

A keen guitarist, too, Jon is the Senior Partner of Proleisure LLP, an international Leisure development company, working with a number of leading Leisure & Sport Brands, Governments and local government organisations.

He has more than two decades of experience in the leisure sector in various senior management and board positions.

His business career blossomed early with Jon one of the founders of Greenwich Leisure Limited, the UK’s leading Leisure Trust.

[Socrates]

Leslie would be an absolutely brilliant Director of Football.

Agree he would be amazing and we'd all be thrilled when he insisted that the manager and all the coaches had to be members of his Tafia...

Seriously, Marwood's roleis pretty clear, it is to interpret for Cook when talking to football people. Cook speaks marketing, Marwood speaks marketing AND football. Pretty simple.

[kinsey]

For as long as I have hole in my arse "God Hughsey" will not be director of football in Manchester City Football Club. That I'm 100% sure of.


Hughes is never going to have any involvement with our club again - no one is saying that he should now become OUR director of Football. Just that he would have the necessary skills.

I just think it is a pity that he did not possess the skills required to have been a good manager for us...

[Alex Sapphire]

For as long as I have hole in my arse "God Hughsey" will not be director of football in Manchester City Football Club. That I'm 100% sure of.

And credit??? Why not give credit to hundreds of people who work for the Club, doing their job? You are giving Hughes all the credit for changes in infrastructure? So are you saying the club are lieing and this feller and his team is trying to steal credit from "god Hughesy"??

you've got me as wrong as possible here.

The question raised by someone else was would MH make a decent DOF, not should he be in that job here. He's gone and like it or not we have Brian (Sheffield Wednesday) Marwood in that job (if not in name). My point was in any reasonable way, MH is at least as well qualified as BM.

Credit to the staff? Yes. Credit to Jon Stemp yes. Although he's a bit of a dissapointment as the man who gave up a crusade in the public sector to take the football dollar. He's the bloke who would tax the fat (so look out boys).

I "give all the credit to Hughes" NO I don't. Neither of us know where to apportion credit. It says here Stemp "oversaw" it. If it had said "masterminded it" he might be due all the credit. We've already had the discussion on here about Project Managers. They're like midwives, they deliver, but they don't conceive.

However, Stemp IS the guy who talks about the "supporter experience". Well I'm still waiting for that to get markedly better. When is he going to deliver something in the space he cleared out in the stadium??

and you've got to stop referring to Hughes as a god, or indeed God. It doesn't look good (or Good).