Has our recruitement been good enough? | Page 3 | Vital Football

Has our recruitement been good enough?

German Imp said:
I say that statement Jay, as I, like the rest of the fans have a view on recruitment but ultimately the Board know what parameters have been set for the recruitment team to work in and how much additional funds are available or more to the point, will be made available in addition to the budget set in the summer. It will be for the Board to decide if they are getting bang for their buck, they know the constraints the recruitment team are working to, we have no clue what conversations have taken place between the SLT.
Click to expand...
Yes, we will never know as much as people involved but my point was that despite this we can clearly see what quality was brought (or not) to the team and answer the question about our recruitment.

Bottom line for me is what's on the pitch. We signed good players we played well. We signed crap ones and we are where we are.

I do understand what you're saying though.

We've got 6 days left and I think we will do get one or two, hopefully quality, players.
 
I'm hearing that MK and JG are allegedly not seeing eye to eye. If true where does that leave us this transfer window.
 
It's not a very hard "rumour" to make up is it.

Almost certain to have a grain of truth in it....because no two people will agree about everything...ask the wife.
 
Head coaches will want this player or that player.
Director of football will point out we have two brass farthings to rub together
Equals a coach and DOF not seeing eye to eye.
Non story even if there's some truth to it
 
Rasenimp said:
I apologies if I am reading any of this wrong and this may be over simplified, but our latest accounts - £6.2m in staff costs for 21/22 up from £5.1/£5.2m in the previous two seasons. From what I can see on other team's websites (some more up to date than others- we seem to publish stuff clearly and well!) Morecambe were about the £2.3m mark for 2021. The latest figures I could see for Shrewsbury were £4.1m, Burton around £4m... but a fair few clubs it doesn't seem clear/easy to see.
Click to expand...
Remember that the wage bill shown in company accounts is the total wage bill for the company, not the playing budget. There may also be information in the notes regarding staff numbers, which usually tells you how many are players. Some clubs have a lot of staff involved in commercial activities etc - Lincoln said in their accounts last week that they had expanded the workforce in a number of areas.
 
Scotimp said:
Remember that the wage bill shown in company accounts is the total wage bill for the company, not the playing budget. There may also be information in the notes regarding staff numbers, which usually tells you how many are players. Some clubs have a lot of staff involved in commercial activities etc - Lincoln said in their accounts last week that they had expanded the workforce in a number of areas.
Click to expand...

Yeah good point. I think it's alright for a proxy generally assuming players are the big earners but not totally accurate for this. Especially as lots of clubs haven't published that info. Better than that random salary website though...
 
Scotimp said:
Remember that the wage bill shown in company accounts is the total wage bill for the company, not the playing budget. There may also be information in the notes regarding staff numbers, which usually tells you how many are players. Some clubs have a lot of staff involved in commercial activities etc - Lincoln said in their accounts last week that they had expanded the workforce in a number of areas.
Click to expand...
For sure but it's not a bad guide... You are only really employing a commercial team to generate more revenue, so you can have more money to spend on players.

If your commercial team takes a disproportionate part of your wage bill, you have got a problem??
 
My opinion is that of most people, that we have made some decent signings both loan and actual signings but also some poor ones but I am concerned that the trend is that we are going backwards at the minute and that is due to a combination of circumstances that if isn't dealt with will see us back in League 2 which none of us want.

The way I see it is that as a lower league club I really dont see the need for us to have a Director of Football.

I get it at the top level where you are dealing with lots of different international players and multi millions of pounds and lots of different aspects to players contracts but at our level I really dont think it's necessary. I just think you are over complicating it and adding another layer which if doesn't go right will cause you more problems than it's worth.

If I became a club chairman tomorrow morning my line of command on the playing side would be;
Manager
Assistant Manager
Coaching Staff
Chief Scout/Director of Scouting or whatever fancy name you want to give them.
Scouts.

That's all you need and is probably similar to what we have got at the moment but ultimately for me the manager has to be in control of everything.

He decides the tactics, picks the team, decides on the training, picks the players he wants to play for him and ultimately bears all responsibility for results.

That's the only way it can be done. Any other way is open to circumstances that can get very messy with two people making decisions that they may not always agree on. Therefore if results aren't going well one could blame the other. The coach will say the players he is being given aren't good enough and the DoF will say he has given the coach good players but is either not using them correctly or coaching them correctly. At the end of the who then goes. The coach, the DoF or both of them?

As a chairman I think that you have to know exactly who to go to when things get to a point when difficult decisions have to be made without any complications.

It may be like that, I don't know ,but that is just my opinion on the matter.
 
clanfordimp said:
My opinion is that of most people, that we have made some decent signings both loan and actual signings but also some poor ones but I am concerned that the trend is that we are going backwards at the minute and that is due to a combination of circumstances that if isn't dealt with will see us back in League 2 which none of us want.

The way I see it is that as a lower league club I really dont see the need for us to have a Director of Football.

I get it at the top level where you are dealing with lots of different international players and multi millions of pounds and lots of different aspects to players contracts but at our level I really dont think it's necessary. I just think you are over complicating it and adding another layer which if doesn't go right will cause you more problems than it's worth.

If I became a club chairman tomorrow morning my line of command on the playing side would be;
Manager
Assistant Manager
Coaching Staff
Chief Scout/Director of Scouting or whatever fancy name you want to give them.
Scouts.

That's all you need and is probably similar to what we have got at the moment but ultimately for me the manager has to be in control of everything.

He decides the tactics, picks the team, decides on the training, picks the players he wants to play for him and ultimately bears all responsibility for results.

That's the only way it can be done. Any other way is open to circumstances that can get very messy with two people making decisions that they may not always agree on. Therefore if results aren't going well one could blame the other. The coach will say the players he is being given aren't good enough and the DoF will say he has given the coach good players but is either not using them correctly or coaching them correctly. At the end of the who then goes. The coach, the DoF or both of them?

As a chairman I think that you have to know exactly who to go to when things get to a point when difficult decisions have to be made without any complications.

It may be like that, I don't know ,but that is just my opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

I get that Clanford, and in the simplistic world of first team football I'm with you on what you say. However, who deals with the academies, attracting youngsters, selling the club to parents and carers and all the other duties a DoF undertakes. If not a DoF then you are employing someone else to that and someone else to do this etc etc.
 
Ainsworth7 said:
The point about other small League One clubs is interesting - if they don’t operate with a DoF then at Lincoln you’d hope the position would be providing some added value.
Click to expand...

On that subject I thought I'd spend a little time looking at the staffing at League One clubs. This is all taken from the listings on the clubs' websites, although in some cases I do have doubts as to how complete they are.

Only the Imps and Plymouth have someone with the title of Director of Football, although the Argyle have a Head of Recruitment in addition.

Equivalent roles with other clubs in addition to the usual Manager/Head Coach and Assistants to both seem to be:

Bolton - Head of Football Administration
Cambridge - Head of Performance
Cheltenham - Head of Coaching
Derby - Head of Scouting Operations
Exeter, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Oxford and Ipswich - Head of Recruitment
Forest Green - Head of Performance & Recruitment
Milton Keynes - Sporting Director
Wycombe - Recruitment Analyst

Barnsley, Bristol Rovers, Charlton, Morecambe, Peterborough, Port Vale and Shrewsbury only list the usual manager, assistant and coach (by whatever names) - although Bristol Rovers have three 'First Team Coaches' along with the manager.

Accrington, Burton and Fleetwood only list two roles - manager/coach and assistant.
 
German Imp said:
I get that Clanford, and in the simplistic world of first team football I'm with you on what you say. However, who deals with the academies, attracting youngsters, selling the club to parents and carers and all the other duties a DoF undertakes. If not a DoF then you are employing someone else to that and someone else to do this etc etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, hear what your saying but first team recruitment and attracting young players players to the academy are two different departments and roles for me.

Sure if you want to have someone who has the title of DoF or whatever you want to call them who is in charge of everything football outside the first team squad, fine.

I just don't think you can have two individuals calling the same shots.
At some stage it inevitably goes belly up.
 
If you scatter seeds some blow in the wind some are eaten by the birds some land on infertile land some grow into a nice crop

it’s too early in the season to make a judgement on this years crop
 
Merthyr Imp said:
On that subject I thought I'd spend a little time looking at the staffing at League One clubs. This is all taken from the listings on the clubs' websites, although in some cases I do have doubts as to how complete they are.

Only the Imps and Plymouth have someone with the title of Director of Football, although the Argyle have a Head of Recruitment in addition.

Equivalent roles with other clubs in addition to the usual Manager/Head Coach and Assistants to both seem to be:

Bolton - Head of Football Administration
Cambridge - Head of Performance
Cheltenham - Head of Coaching
Derby - Head of Scouting Operations
Exeter, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Oxford and Ipswich - Head of Recruitment
Forest Green - Head of Performance & Recruitment
Milton Keynes - Sporting Director
Wycombe - Recruitment Analyst

Barnsley, Bristol Rovers, Charlton, Morecambe, Peterborough, Port Vale and Shrewsbury only list the usual manager, assistant and coach (by whatever names) - although Bristol Rovers have three 'First Team Coaches' along with the manager.

Accrington, Burton and Fleetwood only list two roles - manager/coach and assistant.
Click to expand...
Interesting. 21 out of 24.
"Accrington, Burton and Fleetwood only list two roles - manager/coach and assistant."
20th, 23rd, 17th, I wonder if their fans think the recruitment is going well.

And for those who site accrington as the value for money recruitment kings of l1, will it be money saved if they end up in l2?
 
clanfordimp said:
My opinion is that of most people, that we have made some decent signings both loan and actual signings but also some poor ones but I am concerned that the trend is that we are going backwards at the minute and that is due to a combination of circumstances that if isn't dealt with will see us back in League 2 which none of us want.

The way I see it is that as a lower league club I really dont see the need for us to have a Director of Football.

I get it at the top level where you are dealing with lots of different international players and multi millions of pounds and lots of different aspects to players contracts but at our level I really dont think it's necessary. I just think you are over complicating it and adding another layer which if doesn't go right will cause you more problems than it's worth.

If I became a club chairman tomorrow morning my line of command on the playing side would be;
Manager
Assistant Manager
Coaching Staff
Chief Scout/Director of Scouting or whatever fancy name you want to give them.
Scouts.

That's all you need and is probably similar to what we have got at the moment but ultimately for me the manager has to be in control of everything.

He decides the tactics, picks the team, decides on the training, picks the players he wants to play for him and ultimately bears all responsibility for results.

That's the only way it can be done. Any other way is open to circumstances that can get very messy with two people making decisions that they may not always agree on. Therefore if results aren't going well one could blame the other. The coach will say the players he is being given aren't good enough and the DoF will say he has given the coach good players but is either not using them correctly or coaching them correctly. At the end of the who then goes. The coach, the DoF or both of them?

As a chairman I think that you have to know exactly who to go to when things get to a point when difficult decisions have to be made without any complications.

It may be like that, I don't know ,but that is just my opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure many clubs have the "manager runs everything" approach anymore- certainly successful clubs don't appear to. The manager/coach dictates the type of player needed, skill set, energy, style, abilities etc but it shouldn't be the manager saying "I want Brennan Johnson" because it may not be Brennan Johnson. A recruitment team brings in players of which MK seems to be part (this does appear to be a standard way these days across clubs)

Bringing in players these days can take months of agent negotiations, courting players etc. I don't like it, I wish it were different but we are in a buyer's market (the buyer being the player) and we are trying to get our goods (ie the club) visible and attractive to the player.

The old days of the traditional manager are pretty much gone now- certainly at this level. Managers/Head Coaches don't even decide the training these days- they set the strategy of what they want from the goalkeeper, defence, midfield, attack which will be based upon analysing data, review match footage and team tactics- the training coaches go off and train accordingly in line with the overall objectives. MK will no doubt be present at some training but often groups of players are training simultaneously and he can't be in all places at once.

That's the modern game in L1 and above-I'm not really sure it will change in the foreseeable.
 
clanfordimp said:
Yeah, hear what your saying but first team recruitment and attracting young players players to the academy are two different departments and roles for me.

Sure if you want to have someone who has the title of DoF or whatever you want to call them who is in charge of everything football outside the first team squad, fine.

I just don't think you can have two individuals calling the same shots.
At some stage it inevitably goes belly up.
Click to expand...

Agree totally with your last point Clanford, it does become fuzzy if not managed correctly. Clear lines of command & control in any organisation is key. Who overrules who in our current set up? Who carries the failure can? Interesting !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.