FanCasts

Sit back, relax and listen to our FREE Football Podcasts. Subscribe 4 FREE to get your teams show each week.

Blogs

Intelligent, articulate, opinion. Read, rate and comment!

Banter

Create your own discussion and debate - Sign up and get involved!

Football FanCast columnist Jim McKendry is baffled as to why clubs feel the need to appoint a Director of Football.

If there is one role within the beautiful game that needs to be defined, then it has to be that of the Director of football. What is their role? What are their duties and more importantly why does it always seem to end in tears?

In theory it makes perfect sense. It provides continuity, takes workload of the manager and provides that bridge between the board and the playing staff. In reality it turns, more often or not, into a walking disaster especially if the Director of Football and manager don't get on or have a differing of opinion.

I was always under the impression that their duty was simply to go out and get the players that have been cited by the manager. Sure they were there to offer guidance and recommend players but subsequently the final decision lay with the coach. In most given cases this is not normally the case and their presence around the football club is about as welcome, to a manager, as a fart in an elevator.

You can provide a list as long as your arm of managers who have been put out by the introduction of a Director of Football. Harry Redknapp didn't take kindly to Sir Clive Woodward; it is fair to say Damien Comolli will not be sharing season greetings with Martin Jol, while the introduction of Avram Grant was the straw that really broke the camel's back for Jose Mourinho at Chelsea. So why are we so intent in conforming to a continental approach?

If there is something that always amazes me is that we look to the continents to rectify our own failings. Should it be the international set-up, coaching techniques, they always become our country's guru. It really makes no sense and what I find extremely baffling is that the three most successful teams in the country, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United all operate without them. Surely club chairman don't need any more proof than that?

Players join football clubs for the manager and that is why he should be the ones conducting transfers. If you were a footballer who would you rather negotiate with, Dennis Wise or Kevin Keegan, Damien Comolli or Juande Ramos? It seems pretty transparent to me.

I have never seen this system work at a football club in this country and I don't expect it to start now.

Poll:

  • Average: 3 (1 vote)
Greekos
Picture of Greekos
I think that in the modern
I think that in the modern game during the season when players need to be scouted to see how they play there just isnt enough time for a manager to do that and run the training of the team due to the increased number of games. The director of football is a useful role but it does need some very clear definition. In my view they are a glorified head scout who also deals with the admin work when signing a player. That is what they should be in my book. But I think where a lot of clubs fall down is where the chairmen appoints the DoF instead of the coach. At the end of the day its the coach who has to deal with them regularly so they should pick them on merit and personality to ensure that there arnt any clashes. Also I feel that if coaches think that they dont need a DoF then the chairman should take this on board and let the manager employ any system they want to sign players.

Des
Picture of Des
We really don't need a
We really don't need a director of football at Tottenham, Ramos and Poyet are more than capable to control the signings of players.

Faustino
Picture of Faustino
When Giles Grimandi was
When Giles Grimandi was first employed at Arsenal it was mentioned as a Director of Football role, but now he is referred to as a Scout. I think therein lies your answer. [N.B. you also seriously contradicted your self with the '...Chelsea operate without a D.O.F[sic]....' comment there didn't you!] With most successful clubs now operating with u17, u21, reserve and first team squads you've confused a post that is charged with the responsibility of over seeing scouting/transfers and admin of an entire club with someone who sets out to udermine the authority of the first team coach/manager. All the bigs clubs have complex management systems and have certain persons in their employ who fullfil roles very similar to the Wise/Comolli positions - all you've done is singled out the clubs who give them the 'Director of Football' titles.

Mepster
Picture of Mepster
if im not mistaken chelsea
if im not mistaken chelsea bought our last director of football a few seasons back isnt it frank arnesen?

Nick
Picture of Nick
The most biased led poll of
The most biased led poll of all time?? "Definitely" or "Not really". Either have two absolute answers or none, otherwise its a completely pointless poll.

Sam
Picture of Sam
The continental system
The continental system works. It is very easy to point the finger and blame the DoF for a clubs' failings but it is invariably something else that is the real problem. Comolli knows his place at Spurs and his role is blown out of proportion - I believe more often than not he is made the scapegoat, when really everyone at top of the club (Levy, Ramos, Comolli et al) are responsible. Just look at Sevilla. It was arguably the DoF there (Ramon Monchi) that was responsble for brining in the major talent they have there.