Spursidol
Well-Known Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 12,636
- 15,834
Interesting series of tweets, prompted by Rafa Benitez outburst last night.
Wayne Veysey @wayneveysey
Not saying its right or wrong for the role of Chelsea manager to be so expendable, but there is certainly some logic to it.
Wayne Veysey @wayneveysey
Why should the manager be in sole charge of the football operation (deciding players' wages, choosing which agents to work with etc)?
Wayne Veysey @wayneveysey
In England, it is all about the cult of the manager (staged presser, touch-line posturing, personality-led analysis) fed by us in the media.
Wayne Veysey @wayneveysey
But owners/chairmen/presidents, particularly in Europe, see the manager/first-team coach differently ie not responsible for the whole club.
Wayne Veysey @wayneveysey
Swansea, West Brom & Fulham are all good eg's of stable clubs where managers are short-term but backroom staff, academy, board are long-term
Wayne Veysey @wayneveysey
Manager is important. Of course he is. But he should not be a god-like figure or dictator. This is so unhealthy. At Arsenal, for instance.
Just thinking how the current position at Spurs is.
We've tried a conventionakl DoF system - it worked pretty well with Aanesen, poorly with Commoli (replaced Jol with Ramos, most players bought in at relatively high prices, some good for long term such as Bale, others not so such as Bentley, Hutton)
We then went back to a conventional manager set up with Redknapp (except Redknapp never really seemed to be that interested in the Academy, Reserves/u21's (and there was no change in Academy staff) or was involved in appointing agents - but he did appoint a Chief Scout Ian Broomfield, ousting Carr who went as Chief Scout to Newcastle).
With AVB, think he is coaxching the first team primarily, with some input into player transfers/contracts but he is probably not the sole decision maker, and again has little input into the academy/u21's (again the Academy/u21's seemed unaffected by bringing in AVB - although we welcome Freund's input as he had a strong youth role in Germany)
However with each change there has been a considerable change in backroom staff - which is costly (in terms of payoffs and learning time for incoming staff) and disruptive - there is a loss of knowledge of players etc.
Looking at it froim the perspective of changing jobs in a commercial organisation, if you start a new job, you don't automaticaly change out most of the staff working for you. Of course there may need to be some change but it probably should be less than it has been at Spurs.
As an example, Chris Houghton was a coach at Spurs for well over 10 years, serving a number of managers, yet he went at the same time as Jol when Ramos came and Poyet was appointed (probably because he spoke Spanish as well as being a decent coach - yet Chris Houghton's record since leaving Spurs suggests that he was a very good coach so it was a rash decision to ask Houghton to leave, compounded by then asking Poyet to leave when Redknapp joined.
Are Spurs now getting close to the continental model of management rather than a British manager model ?
Wayne Veysey
Not saying its right or wrong for the role of Chelsea manager to be so expendable, but there is certainly some logic to it.
Wayne Veysey
Why should the manager be in sole charge of the football operation (deciding players' wages, choosing which agents to work with etc)?
Wayne Veysey
In England, it is all about the cult of the manager (staged presser, touch-line posturing, personality-led analysis) fed by us in the media.
Wayne Veysey
But owners/chairmen/presidents, particularly in Europe, see the manager/first-team coach differently ie not responsible for the whole club.
Wayne Veysey
Swansea, West Brom & Fulham are all good eg's of stable clubs where managers are short-term but backroom staff, academy, board are long-term
Wayne Veysey
Manager is important. Of course he is. But he should not be a god-like figure or dictator. This is so unhealthy. At Arsenal, for instance.
Just thinking how the current position at Spurs is.
We've tried a conventionakl DoF system - it worked pretty well with Aanesen, poorly with Commoli (replaced Jol with Ramos, most players bought in at relatively high prices, some good for long term such as Bale, others not so such as Bentley, Hutton)
We then went back to a conventional manager set up with Redknapp (except Redknapp never really seemed to be that interested in the Academy, Reserves/u21's (and there was no change in Academy staff) or was involved in appointing agents - but he did appoint a Chief Scout Ian Broomfield, ousting Carr who went as Chief Scout to Newcastle).
With AVB, think he is coaxching the first team primarily, with some input into player transfers/contracts but he is probably not the sole decision maker, and again has little input into the academy/u21's (again the Academy/u21's seemed unaffected by bringing in AVB - although we welcome Freund's input as he had a strong youth role in Germany)
However with each change there has been a considerable change in backroom staff - which is costly (in terms of payoffs and learning time for incoming staff) and disruptive - there is a loss of knowledge of players etc.
Looking at it froim the perspective of changing jobs in a commercial organisation, if you start a new job, you don't automaticaly change out most of the staff working for you. Of course there may need to be some change but it probably should be less than it has been at Spurs.
As an example, Chris Houghton was a coach at Spurs for well over 10 years, serving a number of managers, yet he went at the same time as Jol when Ramos came and Poyet was appointed (probably because he spoke Spanish as well as being a decent coach - yet Chris Houghton's record since leaving Spurs suggests that he was a very good coach so it was a rash decision to ask Houghton to leave, compounded by then asking Poyet to leave when Redknapp joined.
Are Spurs now getting close to the continental model of management rather than a British manager model ?
