- Sep 20, 2005
- 19,147
- 46,140
I know this has been discussed numerous times but in the light of AVB's sacking I think its worth re-visiting.
For me, the DOF system (in England at least) is a bit like communism : great in theory but rarely works in practice.
The top two arguments in favour seems to be :
1) In modern football and business in general the trend is towards specialist departments and positions, with more bureaucracy, more division of power etc. With the game being global and the sport being more professional, the days of the manager wielding power have gone and managers(or head coaches) should be free to focus on 1st teams matters only.
Is this the best way to run a football club though? Does the theory translate itself to football? It has worked on the continent (with Sevilla a prime example) but its not without its problems there either. It may be that there is more patience on the continent with less competitive leagues and that the culture of football in England is just not conducive to it.
Whatever your views on it it can't be denied that our most successful period of recent years have been when the system was ditched. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so.
Imo the manager needs full control over signings. That doesn't mean Levy writes them a blank cheque, they still have to operate with financial constraints and there can still be a chief executive like David Dein/David Gill etc working in tandem with the manager but the guy responsible for results on the pitch should be able to shape the team. There are many facets of building the team, talent and stats of players are only one. The character, injury history, past career, intelligence of players etc are all important too.
Let the football people get on with it. It might sound old fashioned but just because something is modern, doesn't mean its always inherently better.
2) The system allows for greater stability. The chairman/CEO and DOF are the constant, therefore when the head coaches come and go, the player recruitment side is undisturbed and the long term structure and plan of the club remain stable.
Is this stability a red herring? I think it is. Far from creating a stable environment, the committee in charge of signings creates friction.
The end result is the relationships breaking down. We've seen it over again, first with Santini, Levy and Arneson, then Jol, Commoli and Levy and now AVB, Baldini and Levy.
After the inevitable happens a new manager/head coach comes in bringing new ideas, staff and players come and go and the process begins again. Where is the stability in that?
The overriding feeling is that the system can work as long as all parties are on the same wavelength. But Baldini was supposed to be handpicked by AVB and yet the same problems are rearing their ugly head.
It really is time to abandon the system imo or at the very least put an end to the "comittee" with less politics at the club. Or we might as well just give the job to Bill Murray as it will be Groundhog Day over and over again.
For me, the DOF system (in England at least) is a bit like communism : great in theory but rarely works in practice.
The top two arguments in favour seems to be :
1) In modern football and business in general the trend is towards specialist departments and positions, with more bureaucracy, more division of power etc. With the game being global and the sport being more professional, the days of the manager wielding power have gone and managers(or head coaches) should be free to focus on 1st teams matters only.
Is this the best way to run a football club though? Does the theory translate itself to football? It has worked on the continent (with Sevilla a prime example) but its not without its problems there either. It may be that there is more patience on the continent with less competitive leagues and that the culture of football in England is just not conducive to it.
Whatever your views on it it can't be denied that our most successful period of recent years have been when the system was ditched. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so.
Imo the manager needs full control over signings. That doesn't mean Levy writes them a blank cheque, they still have to operate with financial constraints and there can still be a chief executive like David Dein/David Gill etc working in tandem with the manager but the guy responsible for results on the pitch should be able to shape the team. There are many facets of building the team, talent and stats of players are only one. The character, injury history, past career, intelligence of players etc are all important too.
Let the football people get on with it. It might sound old fashioned but just because something is modern, doesn't mean its always inherently better.
2) The system allows for greater stability. The chairman/CEO and DOF are the constant, therefore when the head coaches come and go, the player recruitment side is undisturbed and the long term structure and plan of the club remain stable.
Is this stability a red herring? I think it is. Far from creating a stable environment, the committee in charge of signings creates friction.
The end result is the relationships breaking down. We've seen it over again, first with Santini, Levy and Arneson, then Jol, Commoli and Levy and now AVB, Baldini and Levy.
After the inevitable happens a new manager/head coach comes in bringing new ideas, staff and players come and go and the process begins again. Where is the stability in that?
The overriding feeling is that the system can work as long as all parties are on the same wavelength. But Baldini was supposed to be handpicked by AVB and yet the same problems are rearing their ugly head.
It really is time to abandon the system imo or at the very least put an end to the "comittee" with less politics at the club. Or we might as well just give the job to Bill Murray as it will be Groundhog Day over and over again.