Topic: The structure of Liverpool's football operation (a Football Manager-free debate)

[stoa]

Another area for the managar is deciding about a style of football, a way of playing. Now I agree no manager worth his salt is going to accept being told how his side needs to play - thats got to be down to the manager and the players he has at his disposal. But the idea of a club style or way of playing from U9's to the first team is to allow us to grow players that suit that style - that growing process can take a decade. So you can't change style every couple of years when you switch manager. So you need somebody to come up with an overall style a way of developing kids and players that a manager can then build on and use his own skills to perfect with the first team.

I agree with what you're saying and that's basically the way I see the role of a DoF. Supporting the manager with all the duties he has, coordinating the different departments and basically taking care that the managers values are being implemented.

What I don't agree with is the part I have quoted, because again it's suggesting, that once you sack a manager all his work is going to get undone by the next one. I don't think so. There are enough managers out there who are similar in style and personality to find a successor who doesn't change too much. And it is not as if change is always a bad thing. Things can go stale after a while and new ideas, some tweaking here or there or even a new coach might even be what brings you success...

[ricflairandy]

 

I think you are getting upset for nothing lad bear with me here before you rip me a new one but I dont think you should be jibbing your season ticket for this reason.

We dont yet know how the restructure will work. What do we know?

Is a manager supposed to be a contract negotiator - dealing with specialist agents, lawyers and 2nd hand car salesmen. Do we want 'arry Reknapp? No - somebody else deals with that, the games has changed too much for him to be good enough as a coach and a negotiator. We are told this is now down to Ayre - thats strikes me as a bloody odd choice but its definately more of a commercial role than a footballing one provided we aint saying Ayre is picking the players. Somebody has to set the budget (ayre) somebody else pick the players (hopefully the manager)

Is a manager supposed to deal with the administration side of things - know the politics at the FA, PFA, Uefa etc - should he be able to rub shoulders with the corporates? I'd hope not but some clearly do. Kenny ignored them, Comolli didn't underestand them, Rafa tried, Hodgson was managed by them. Whatever - we'll need someone at the club who knows their way around them but its not crucial for teh manager - I think its more of a admin role - somebody like Barwick I guess.

Does the manager need to be a scout? Well he needs to be able to spot a player but is he expected to travel the globe and sign off on talent. That was hard enough when it was the UK now its the world its impossible. Somebody else needs to run that side of things a head scout. That still means the manager says who he wants but he is not going to run 30 odd scouts as well as the first team. So we'll need someone to head that up. They compile a shot list for positons the manager wants. The final pick will be based on who's wanted and how much money we have.

Does the manager run the medical department? the reserves, the academy? Nah - somebody else runs them but somebody needs to coordinate them all - is that the manager -again -I'm not sure it is - I think that something a DoF would handle.

Another area for the managar is deciding about a style of football, a way of playing. Now I agree no manager worth his salt is going to accept being told how his side needs to play - thats got to be down to the manager and the players he has at his disposal. But the idea of a club style or way of playing from U9's to the first team is to allow us to grow players that suit that style - that growing process can take a decade. So you can't change style every couple of years when you switch manager. So you need somebody to come up with an overall style a way of developing kids and players that a manager can then build on and use his own skills to perfect with the first team. Over time if that manager stays around long enough, his ideas will increasingly influence the style but at the outset its got to be something the club and the manager agree on. And the club will need somebody with a great understanding of football to help set that up with the manager. Somebody needs to set that from the club persepctive that seems to be Segura and I think I'm comfortable with that.

So there are umpteen reasons why the manager's job has changed over the last 25 years - people like Wenger and Ferguson appear all powerful but in essence they've selected people they trust to run those aspects of the game. We unfortunately now dont have the luxury of a manager who has proven himself at the club selecting those he wants to work with,
we are coming at it from scratch.

I dont get where Van Gaal fits into this type of structure at all though -  he's  a manager - but with no experience of the Prem - is he somebody to run a scouting operation, not really - what is his association with running an academy or reserve set up - did he do anything similar at Ajax - I'm not sure he did - If Segura is running the technical side he's not got an input there either - so what the hell would his role be - throw in the overwhelming opinion that he's the most arrogant man in football and the most difficult to get on with and it seems a totally ridiculous  choice
for a DoF - it would make far more sense if he was actually being lined up as manager - his teams have often been young, energetic and played good football - its a 'brand' of football that FSG would probbaly sign off  on.

we'll just have to wait and see but dont jib yer ticket yet.

There are a few reasons im sacking my seasie off. This is just one of them. I really can not see any ambition from the club right now.

But with your other points, I agree to a certain extent. Definitely on the van gaal thing. Hes a winner, proven by winning numerous titles and trophys. Definitly fits the criteria. However i do think that the "dof" if it is regarding the roles you mention should be someone that the manager brings in, not the other way around as is being touted.

I would love to know what the hell fsgs criteria for selection is. Because from the outset it looks like someone who is young, cheap and has got on well with his chairman. I genuinely can not see anyway fsg are using success as a selection.

[ricflairandy]

I agree with what you're saying and that's basically the way I see the role of a DoF. Supporting the manager with all the duties he has, coordinating the different departments and basically taking care that the managers values are being implemented.

What I don't agree with is the part I have quoted, because again it's suggesting, that once you sack a manager all his work is going to get undone by the next one. I don't think so. There are enough managers out there who are similar in style and personality to find a successor who doesn't change too much. And it is not as if change is always a bad thing. Things can go stale after a while and new ideas, some tweaking here or there or even a new coach might even be what brings you success...

This. Maybe if you sack the manager, change is desperatly needed!.

[barneystuta]

The Jen Chang topic is closed.

But it has now been confirmed by the club.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/jen-chang-joins-liverpool-fc

EDIT: Hogan also confirmed - http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/billy-hogan-joins-liverpool-fc

[Gazza-LFC]

As has Billy Hogan
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/billy-hogan-joins-liverpool-fc

[will2003]

The Jen Chang topic is closed.

But it has now been confirmed by the club.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/jen-chang-joins-liverpool-fc

Worst kept secret on twitter along with that Hogan fella. Will be interesting how they do! Good luck to them and next up dof and manager

[helmboy_nige]

The Jen Chang topic is closed.

But it has now been confirmed by the club.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/jen-chang-joins-liverpool-fc

EDIT: Hogan also confirmed - http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/billy-hogan-joins-liverpool-fc

Good stuff.  That's 2 of the people confirmed.  Now let's get the really important two in place...

[TheRussianBiscuit]

Well FSG are now starting to add "structure" with these two (worst kept secret yada yada). Think Hogan will do a good job by the sounds of it. I no nowt about Jen.

[Melbred]

Good, two roles sorted. Now lets get confirm that Sporting Director and Manager so we can get on with the transfers.

[MobileBayRed]

Forgive my naivete, but I have been thinking a lot about these issues (as has everyone else) the last few days.

If the plan is to install a "technical director", "director of football" and manager, it strikes me that the LEAST important of these is the manager.  This was hinted at last year when Hodgson was fired.  I think FSG view the manager role as being expendable.  In other words, the club will have a commercial/technical/football mentality.  They will pay for players who fit the structure of the club.  And they will find a manager willing to work within this structure.  Under the old model, where the manager was in charge of everything, a new manager would come in and completely re-form the first team.  For instance, under the old model, if Rafa was appointed this summer, he may well want to sell a number of recent acquisitions and bring in his own players.  (I know that this would be very popular as many of these players have grossly underachieved and are not popular at the club right now).  This can be a very expensive proposition and certainly does not lead to long-term stability, as every time there is a managerial change, there is a change in philosophy at the club. 

Now I recognize that this model of a football club flies in the face of the traditional English model (though it seems that other European clubs have been moving this direction for some time), and I recognize that FSG has made enough serious blunders to have lost the benefit-of-the-doubt; however, if they do manage to pull it off, I think they will have marginalized (somewhat) the role of manager.  I only say this, becuase there has been a lot of hand wringing on here about who will be our next manager, and it strikes me that the decision pales in comparison to who will be our next "technical director" and "director of football".

[matchyg]

I'm back posting here as a fan...

I don't think these fancy continental structures will work in England. English football has different traditions and philosophy. In England the manager is the boss of all football matters. The manager is the heart and soul of the club. This is the psyche of English football. If Liverpool has a DOF, another football admin, and the coach, too many cooks in the kitchen. It will serve to undermine the manager and will be hard for him to work. Being a manager in England is more than just coaching the team, it means influencing referees, dealing with press, driving the club, players and fans forward. English football will not accept anything less than the manager having full control and authority, anything else is destined to fail one way or another. This model may work in Europe but not in England.

As Shankly said

"At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters.
Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques."

[MobileBayRed]

I'm back posting here as a fan...

I don't think these fancy continental structures will work in England. English football has different traditions and philosophy. In England the manager is the boss of all football matters. The manager is the heart and soul of the club. This is the psyche of English football. If Liverpool has a DOF, another football admin, and the coach, too many cooks in the kitchen. It will serve to undermine the manager and will be hard for him to work. Being a manager in England is more than just coaching the team, it means influencing referees, dealing with press, driving the club, players and fans forward. English football will not accept anything less than the manager having full control and authority, anything else is destined to fail one way or another.

As Shankly said

"At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters.
Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques."

OK, but where is "English" football going?  And it's not like Shankly said that quote last year. 

This is the eternal enigma of LFC.  Go look on the 2011/2012 pictures thread at the picture of Russian LFC's fans turning out to support Suarez and Coates in Moscow.  LFC has always tried to live on the razor's edge between being a local supporters club, an English dynasty, and a worldwide club.  FSG clearly see LFC as a worldwide brand and do not care about the traditions of "English" football.  The major growth areas of commercial revenue in the field of football are in Asia and the States.  There simply isnt much room for commercial growth in England.  For one, there are too many clubs for not enough people.  I think this knowledge is at the root of much of the distaste of a lot of long time LFC fans, and it is completely understandable.  But Manchester United is no longer an "English" football club, just like Barcelona is not a "Spanish" football club.  This is why the Carling Cup and to some extent FA Cup results did not much matter to FSG.  These two trophies are remnants of an era when National supremecy held a position on equal footing with European glory. 

FSG view the club as a key.  The brand of LFC will open commercial revenue streams in Asia and Europe for their multi-media empire.  LFC is not the investment to FSG, it is the tool to unlock greater riches.  To properly utilize this tool, FSG have to improve the global reputation of LFC, and you don't do that by winning Carling Cups.

Now I am not saying that this is the right way of doing business or the best way forward, I am only trying to give some insight into how I think FSG view the club.  But, I have heard many people (including Chelsea fans) say that winning the Champions League was the greatest day in the club's history. 

It seems the "Times they are a changing".  I don't know if they are good changes, but changes are coming to "English" football.  Clinging to parochial traditions may or may not be in the best interest of LFC.  Only time will tell.

[matchyg]

I'm just talking about the pure football managerial operations, Manchester United are run the English way, with the manager being most powerful figure. Arsenal, Manchester City, Tottenham, Newcastle are all run that way.

[MobileBayRed]

I'm just talking about the pure football managerial operations, Manchester United are run the English way, with the manager being most powerful figure. Arsenal, Manchester City, Tottenham, Newcastle are all run that way.

Ok, but I would argue that Newcastle and Tottenham are primarily (solely?) English clubs.  Outside of the Premiere League, I doubt very few people have any knowledge of those clubs.  Not exactly a proving ground of European success are they?  I dont think these clubs are our peers when it comes to global commercial revenue.

As for Arsenal and ManU, they have long established managers.  What do you think will happen to those clubs once Wenger and Ferguson leave?

Man City is an entirely different creature as they have an ownership that makes no pretention about commercial success.  Nobody, outside of PSG, can attempt to emulate their club model right now.

[Red Genius]

You know the way FSG are re-organising the back room is actually textbook, one economy of scale is specialisation, being able to have an individual focus his entire energies on one job. It's a proven method assuming you have the right chain of command, communication channels and the right people.

In fact it's not an awful lot different from our old boot room, having a close knit group of individuals all with their own responsibilities, who come together and share that knowledge amongst the rest of the group. The one reservation i have is that after all these meetings and sharing of information there will be decisions made and the early indications are each role will have a certain amount of responsibility. What we don't have is a football man signing off on the decision making process, the problem with this is that will at some stage present a conflict of interests. By diluting a Manager's role in the club, you also dilute his impact, you have to arm whoever is in charge with the tools to go about delivering the job and that doesn't just involve a budget and go and get em attitude. Decisions that affect the clubs performance, footballing issues need to be made by a footballing person which traditionally has always been the manager.

[Benbo]

Having this group of talented, like-minded people with unique and important individual tasks (The Liverpool equivalent of the Avengers) sounds like a good idea.   but how the hell dose Van Gaal fit into all this? His name alone excites me but I can't see him sitting round a table going, "You make an interesting point Roberto, perhaps I was wrong about that player" 

[IamSpartacus]

1. Dream

2. Brand

3. Strategy

4. Goals and Timelines

5. Structure set

6. People and Resources identified to fit into Structure and achieve the Goals, within the timeline

7. Dominate football for years, crushing all opposition

There is no one correct structure.

There is no exact role responsibility for a DoF, SD, TD or Manager.

All there is, is a goal and timeline and the structure has to fit into that. The structure may well develop over time but it has to be set up to ensure that our goals are achieved. So if we feel that our goals would be achieved by having a Manager who only looks after the first team and slicing oranges at half time and a TD who will be able to decide if we should relocate and can play the violin then that is what we will set up.

So whatever structure we set up, provided it is the set up required for our goals then we will do it.

But until we know the clear strategy we can’t possibly set up structure.

I think that all the time that Kenny was there his knowledge of The Liverpool Way was being drained from him in vampyric ceremonies, so I am assuming that the owners have got 1. and 2. and probably 3. and 4. to an extent but firming dates can only be done once key people are in place.

5. Has been or is in the process being set. One reason the owners are probably seeing or talking to so many people is it is a great way for them to get information, which in term they will feed back into 3. and 5. So them seeing many people is good for LFC! We have an excuse to meet Managers from many walks of life and competitors. Lets learn which aspects of what has made them tick can be fed back into our own operations. Good move FSG.

I guess part of our anxiety is how can we trust a pair of noobs to come up with Strategy and structure. Well they cannot 100%. When you invest in a business you don’t know then you bring in the personnel that do. It may be my cheque book that comes out but you won’t see me running around in a tracksuit. I will bring in people to do that.
Now we have to make some reasonable assumptions. We can be sure of one thing and that is FSG are not the Chicken Farm owners of Blackburn.
FSG, are winners.
FSG, are smart. Smart does not mean you don’t make mistakes. Smart means you learn from the ones you make and try again.
FSG, are setting up a structure for long term success.
FSG, will be able to utilise a lot of cross sport synergys.
FSG, not having footballing tradition or a given way to utilise their own structure for success are open to new ideas and change.

Do I trust them? Yes, I do!

[Zeb]

Marwood is a buisiness man. Hes in a similar role to ian ayre.  He has no input on the managers goings on.

He's a director of football in everything but name. MacBeath, who is acting CEO, (and formerly Cook) is in charge of the business side.

[Gainsbarre]

I'm back posting here as a fan...

I don't think these fancy continental structures will work in England. English football has different traditions and philosophy. In England the manager is the boss of all football matters. The manager is the heart and soul of the club. This is the psyche of English football. If Liverpool has a DOF, another football admin, and the coach, too many cooks in the kitchen. It will serve to undermine the manager and will be hard for him to work. Being a manager in England is more than just coaching the team, it means influencing referees, dealing with press, driving the club, players and fans forward. English football will not accept anything less than the manager having full control and authority, anything else is destined to fail one way or another. This model may work in Europe but not in England.

As Shankly said

"At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters.
Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques."

I echoe that...

[Red Genius]

Having this group of talented, like-minded people with unique and important individual tasks (The Liverpool equivalent of the Avengers) sounds like a good idea.   but how the hell dose Van Gaal fit into all this? His name alone excites me but I can't see him sitting round a table going, "You make an interesting point Roberto, perhaps I was wrong about that player" 

 


I read that in a Schteeve McLaren dutch accent....

[B_I_F]

I'm back posting here as a fan...

I don't think these fancy continental structures will work in England. English football has different traditions and philosophy. In England the manager is the boss of all football matters. The manager is the heart and soul of the club. This is the psyche of English football. If Liverpool has a DOF, another football admin, and the coach, too many cooks in the kitchen. It will serve to undermine the manager and will be hard for him to work. Being a manager in England is more than just coaching the team, it means influencing referees, dealing with press, driving the club, players and fans forward. English football will not accept anything less than the manager having full control and authority, anything else is destined to fail one way or another. This model may work in Europe but not in England.

As Shankly said

"At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters.
Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques."

There's no golden rule what the manager's purpose is in England. It depends on what the club wants and the individualist within it. There are many ways of building a successful club and your way might not always be the only way. Surely the FSG-model heavily requires the directors, managers (and the others) to be "team players", but it might still work if they get good team players. I think the key for their model is that they find team players and that everybody knows what they are expected to do.

Surely it won't work if FSG get someone like Redknapp (just mentioning a "name") because of his style and attitude towards his own role within a football club, but why wouldn't a continental structure work if you get people who are used to work under such circumstances?

I think many models can work if you get the right individuals. Just like many tactics can work for a team if you get the right players for a specific tactic. It's a matter of adapting your recruitment after your philosophy.

[Not A Scouser]

I think that the names of the positions and the duties of each particular name are being over-emphasized.  Every club in the world has essentially the same set of things they need to accomplish to be successful.  Players need to be scouted, evaluated, bought, signed, and released.  Players need to be taught how to play football, obviously more when they are younger.  The various teams need to have a coach who works on selecting the players, motivating the players, organizing the team, in game management.  These are the same for any club.  As long as these things are being done well the club will be successful.

The thing is that the set of these jobs in modern football amounts to more than one, or several, people can do by themselves.  There are all sorts of arrangements of responsibilities that can be made to essentially achieve the same thing.  You can have a manager who has ultimate responsibility for the whole program, like Ferguson or Wenger.  They will still have scouts, academy people, coaches, etc..  You can have a Director of Football who does nothing but oversee the whole program, with a series of experts in different areas, you could have a manager who oversees the first team and first team transfers but doesn't get on the pitch to train the team.  You could have a first team coach who is told what the system will be, the way of playing, and someone decides which players he gets for that system.

It doesn't matter very much what the system is, as long as there is a system that is understood and agreed to by everyone.  Within that system you need experts doing what they are good at, and not doing what they are bad at.  There are massively successful teams where the manager is the person ultimately responsible for everything on the football side (Man Utd).  There are massively successful teams with a Director of Football system (Bayern Munich.)  There are massively successful teams where the system of playing, set up by someone who doesn't even work at the club anymore, is viewed as the ultimate responsibility (Barcelona).

[rola]

I'm finding it all a bit hard to follow.

I think we're going to have stop using the description "manager", because it simply won't exist under the new structure.  What we'll have is a head coach in charge of the 1st team. 

So far so new.

My understanding was that we would add to this a technical director (think of this in terms of a skills/systems/tactics expert) plus a sporting director (not a Director of Football) who would be responsible for the administrative side of the football operations.  The technical & sporting directors would together ensure a consistent approach & set up through all levels of the club, so we can maybe start to identify, nurture & realise talent from within.  The head coach focuses entirely on the first team and gets them ready for the business of winning football matches.  He deals with the elite players at the club and he'll work closely with the other two to identify what additional talent is needed to improve that team and whether that is going to come from within the club (talented youth) or from outside (transfer activity).

I get that.  It's different.  It's not what I'm used to but I get it.  I think I can understand why it's needed in the modern football landscape with it's player power, multi million pound transfers/contracts & global reach.

What I don't get with this is where Louis van Gaal fits into this anywhere other than as manager....sorry, I mean head coach. 

He's not a DoF and he's certainly doesn't fit the mould of what I think a sporting director might look like or how he might operate.  This guy is a control freak who leaves behind a trail of destruction in between his multiple championship wins. He's not an individual who believes in the power of the collective or decision through consensus. He won't specialise in his area of responsibility.  He'll want to run the team and decide how things are done. All things. A head coach will be there to do his bidding and implement his approach and will be lucky if he's even allowed to put out the cones where he wants.  He makes Rafa look like Roy Evans.  Aloysius Paulus Maria "Louis" van Gaal is a complete fucking nutter and his appointment as anything other than head coach will only end in complete and utter fucking disaster in my opinion.

I don't get how he fits with this supposed set up. I don't get why he's interested.  I don't get this at all. 

Oh, and will someone please smack Dave Whelan in the mouth and tell him to shut the fuck up. I don't want to hear another bleedin word from him about anything to do with LFC.

[John C]

I don't think these fancy continental structures will work in England.

We've had everything "fancy" in this country for the last 10 years mate. Recently, as a club we had a local chairman who skinted himself acquiring Dirk Kuyt. We've witnessed Americans hemorrhaging money while others support an already successful model. We've seen oligarch's ambitions and sheiks success's. We've also seen chicken farmers fall fowl and property developers droop.

It's hard being an LFC fan currently, although I only have to google the image of Kenny with the Carling Cup to wane those worries, and a lot of people thought Jen Hogan was an actress. But all we want is something to gel. There is no such thing as a will or won't work structure unless it has obvious flaws mate. Didn't we have a dream structure with Souness & Boersma and then Houllier & Evans - Not.

We are simply in a fucking mess, but I think, I could be wrong, I think we have owners who are at least trying to attract the best people for their respective positions. The jury will be out on all new incumbents, including the eventual manager in due course but if a framework of absent owners, a drunken manager and a yes-man assistant can work, and I'm not talking about MU, I'm sure we can build something good.

[NHRed]

I get that.  It's different.  It's not what I'm used to but I get it.  I think I can understand why it's needed in the modern football landscape with it's player power, multi million pound transfers/contracts & global reach.

What I don't get with this is where Louis van Gaal fits into this anywhere other than as manager....sorry, I mean head coach. 

I think there always has to be one final, ultimate boss in charge of football at a club.  I think FSG are smart enough to know this.

Defining the Liverpool approach to football and seeing it through the Academy and player development through the reserves and onto the pitch with the first team as well as scouting and recruiting on a global scope is a demanding, intense, full-time job.

Tactics, training, and the overall game of football has become enormously more sophisticated and complex over the years.  Motivating and preparing a squad of millionaire athletes for what they'll see and what their own tactics are is a demanding, intense, full-time job.

That's 2 full-time jobs.  Trying to shove them into one person will break just about anyone, which is why I believe that FSG sees the traditional English model for Manager as unworkable.  The Manager and the Head Boss Football Guy (happy now?) need to be partners.  They have separate, equally critical jobs for the immediate and long-term success of the club.  Because he has the remit for the longer-term view, the Head Boss Football Guy probably has to be the one with the final say, the casting vote if you will.  If these 2 can't get along, won't talk to each other or listen to each other, this is an unworkable mess.  But when they do work well together, it can be brilliant.

There's still going to be one guy who is the final authority on Liverpool football - and he should be a football man of vast experience and qualification.  Van Gaal probably fits.  Just don't look for him in the technical area during the match.

[ricflairandy]

The lack of ambition from the club is scary.

[CraigDS]

The lack of ambition from the club is scary.

Im not so sure, if they had a lack of ambition then why change anything at all? Why not just let the current management, etc carry on.

[ricflairandy]

Im not so sure, if they had a lack of ambition then why change anything at all? Why not just let the current management, etc carry on.

IMO, and its only my opinion. Kenny wanted big money to spend to bring in better players. If it wasnt the case, they wouldnt be making the primary target for LFC a cheap manager who is used to spending no money and will be so gratefull for the job that he wouldnt complain.

That has to be the reason, otherwise any sane owner with ambition would have gone for the many top managers with winning histories who are free. The issue is, they would have all liked to bring in some top expensve players.

[CraigDS]

IMO, and its only my opinion. Kenny wanted big money to spend to bring in better players. If it wasnt the case, they wouldnt be making the primary target for LFC a cheap manager who is used to spending no money and will be so gratefull for the job that he wouldnt complain.

That has to be the reason, otherwise any sane owner with ambition would have gone for the many top managers with winning histories who are free. The issue is, they would have all liked to bring in some top expensve players.

Kenny wouldn't of left even if they told him they had no money, and he wouldn't of kicked up a public fuss either so no reason to get rid of him for that reason.

Lack of ambition does not really ring true to me as the reason to do all this.

As for going for 'top managers', it remains to be seen who we will get, and also what the 'top managers' would of wanted - they may of wanted total control with no DOF, or to change the whole club set up and thats something FSG won't allow.

[robgomm]

I'm not really clear on what the planned structure is, so I'd rather wait before judging it. But I'm thinking that generally a Director of Football (or whatever title you use) can work appreciably well. If roles are defined and people work together it's fine. Spurs are obviously the interesting case, since they've gone from one model to the other. With Redknapp, you can't have a DoF because he needs control of transfers. But if you have primarily a coach rather than a manager, a DoF is really useful. In Martinez' case, his experience of transfers is limited in terms of money he's had to spend. He's signed some decent players and some flops, like anyone, but a DoF with experience of transferring players at a top level would help fill in the gaps of his inexperience. Same with Rodgers.

[ricflairandy]

Kenny wouldn't of left even if they told him they had no money, and he wouldn't of kicked up a public fuss either so no reason to get rid of him for that reason.

Lack of ambition does not really ring true to me as the reason to do all this.

As for going for 'top managers', it remains to be seen who we will get, and also what the 'top managers' would of wanted - they may of wanted total control with no DOF, or to change the whole club set up and thats something FSG won't allow.

I think its pretty well known who we are getting , seeing as hes the only one in the running. And going for an unprovem manager just because hes happy to let  someone else call the shots is imo, lack of ambition.

[Carolina Red]

IMO, and its only my opinion. Kenny wanted big money to spend to bring in better players. If it wasnt the case, they wouldnt be making the primary target for LFC a cheap manager who is used to spending no money and will be so gratefull for the job that he wouldnt complain.

That has to be the reason, otherwise any sane owner with ambition would have gone for the many top managers with winning histories who are free. The issue is, they would have all liked to bring in some top expensve players.

Per the Guardian and some other sources (make of that what you will) one of FSG's concerns was that in the season review in Boston Kenny said no major changes needed to be made to the squad. Who knows if that's true of not, just putting it out there.

[rola]

I think there always has to be one final, ultimate boss in charge of football at a club.  I think FSG are smart enough to know this.

Defining the Liverpool approach to football and seeing it through the Academy and player development through the reserves and onto the pitch with the first team as well as scouting and recruiting on a global scope is a demanding, intense, full-time job.

Tactics, training, and the overall game of football has become enormously more sophisticated and complex over the years.  Motivating and preparing a squad of millionaire athletes for what they'll see and what their own tactics are is a demanding, intense, full-time job.

That's 2 full-time jobs.  Trying to shove them into one person will break just about anyone, which is why I believe that FSG sees the traditional English model for Manager as unworkable.  The Manager and the Head Boss Football Guy (happy now?) need to be partners.  They have separate, equally critical jobs for the immediate and long-term success of the club.  Because he has the remit for the longer-term view, the Head Boss Football Guy probably has to be the one with the final say, the casting vote if you will.  If these 2 can't get along, won't talk to each other or listen to each other, this is an unworkable mess.  But when they do work well together, it can be brilliant.

There's still going to be one guy who is the final authority on Liverpool football - and he should be a football man of vast experience and qualification.  Van Gaal probably fits.  Just don't look for him in the technical area during the match.

I see what you mean but I don't think that a "final authority" is what FSG want.  They want delineated lines of accountability with collective responsibility. 

Also, what I was saying earlier was that I couldn't see how Louis van Gaal fitted into that set up as anything other than the head coach. If he's the DoF then he wants that ultimate authority - basically just means he wants to run the team as well.  What does the head coach do in those circumstances? Argue?  Agree and get on with it?  Who's doing to work under that sort of set up?  Either way he'll be up against one of the most single minded men in football.  The only way I see van Gaal working is as a head coach with a sporting director looking after football admin as a general manager support role with a wider remit across all levels of the club.

Anyone who thinks van Gaal would fit in any other capacity does not realise what they are dealing with. The man is mad as a box of frogs.

[rola]

I wasn't sure where to put this.  Thought this thread seemed the most appropriate place.

The structure and DoF was mentioned at the press conference.  BR made it clear he wasn't happy with a DoF set up, and I'm sure that Ayre confirmed that there wouldn't be one at the close.  What seemed like a contradiction was reaffirming a commitment to "a continental model" on the football side.  BR talked about a "technical board".  The impression is of collective, collaborative decision making.

It's absolutely crucial that the individuals in these other roles are the right people.  By "right" I mean comfortable working in that collective and having a mentality that is focused on doing their job well for the benefit of the club. No egos or mentalists required.

How many I'm not sure - Comolli's previous DoF being split into 2 or 3 other roles maybe. Specialists in defined areas.

Technical specialist - a skills & tactics person responsible for ensuring continuity of approach through all levels of the club.   

Talent or Super scout - person responsible for coordinating the profiling, identification and recruitment of new players for club - from youth through to 1st team.

General manager - this is a bit tenuous, but this is basically the administrative side of the football operations.

The aim of all this is to provide BR with the support he needs to get the very best out of the 1st team squad.  The aim is to concentrate all of his time & effort into getting the very best out of his players and team.

My experience of collective working - all from a business perspective - is that it works fine when people have very clear lines of responsibility & accountability. It helps is they all get on with each other, though it's not essential. Difference of opinion and even a little bit of difficulty causing some tension and dispute can provide a creative spark that drives innovation. Avoiding "groupthink" is very important.
It starts to fall down when people start to interfere with others' remits. It collapses when people attempt undermine each other, usually motivated by a desire to seek to control the group. Factions can form and conflict arises that is damaging and stops the group operating effectively.

The key is to get people in who are happy to, and even welcome, working in that sort of set up.  Trying to force someone into a role that they would like to expand or see as a stepping stone to greater things usually ends in disaster.  The person has to fit - their attitude, behaviour and mindset has to be spot on.

I hope FSG get this right.  I detected the slightest hint of maybe not being on entirely the same page about this at the press conference. The distinction is very subtle, and easy to miss:
BR works with a sporting director/DoF. BR works to a sporting director/DoF.

This has the potential to derail the football club. The press are watching very closely because they've already decided this sort of model doesn't work.  Not in England anyway.  Fergie says so.  Harry says so.  Must be right then.  Any sign of tension or disharmony and they'll be into it immediately to twist the knife.  I suppose I'm just a bit concerned that BR might think one thing and the owners another...don't want to rain on the parade, but I thought it was worth a mention. 

Might be just me.  Anyone got any views on this?  Different take? 
Maybe I've picked this up wrong and its all going to be rainbows and lollipops and everyone happy. Someone scratch this itch.

 


 

[Vulmea]

Might be just me.  Anyone got any views on this?  Different take? 
Maybe I've picked this up wrong and its all going to be rainbows and lollipops and everyone happy. Someone scratch this itch.
 

As per usual I think you are spot on in terms of defining the technical board

Where the Sporting Director/admin guy who looks after medical and contracts and the FA and liases across all Departments etc stops and Rodgers starts I'm not sure. I think thats the area that could cause conflict and its the one post we aint sure about and have no genuine names for. Given the importance of transfers to a manager's ability to deliver - negotiating deals etc whether successful or not - could be a major issue - tables and lamps, Keane and Barry, Young or Downing etc. This role has to balance the suits in the board room with the results on the pitch - gets none of the kudos and all of the flak - bring in an ego and bang there's instant conflict - no ego and they are unlikely to have the dynamism to do the job. Its an intersting one to fill thats for sure. An outgoing introvert, a second hand car salesman with a knowledge of football , a decent suit and a love of spreadsheets - its an odd mix.

I'm hoping Segura is the Technical Director - he seems to be on the same page as Rodgers or as close as damn it. I've enjoyed what he has said so far. How Borrel fits I'm not sure - if he has aspirations for a senior role I'm not sure but I think I read he doesn't he thinks his raison d'etre is coaching kids. I hope these three get on they seem to have similar philosophies.

The head scout's role should be easy to delineate - - we tell you what we want - you bring us the names and we'll pick who we want - seems straightforward to me.

The other interesting thing is the guys Rogers has brought with him - assistant, fair enough, knows how he works, knows what he wants, does the leg work. The conditioning coach - should cause the players some concerns for pre-season but I thought we had this covered. However there was talk of Burgess stepping up so maybe there is a gap.  The analyst - again I thought we already had a top team here so I'm not sure why we need this lad. He is a Rodgers protege though so maybe he's bringing something unique -  makes you wonder though about  how much is comfort blanket and how much actually required maybe the lad is not as robust as he first appears.

Theer was a quote last season from a senior player about how much it grates being told how to train by a sports science graduate with  a lap top - I think some of our players are in for a slice and dice let alone a grating

[vivabobbygraham]

Might be just me.  Anyone got any views on this?  Different take? 
Maybe I've picked this up wrong and its all going to be rainbows and lollipops and everyone happy. Someone scratch this itch.

Your instincts are right on the confusion. They may not be on the same page purely because it keeps getting rewritten. My take on it is the thinktank will comprise of the people Rodgers has brought with him plus Segura and maybe Rodolfo. The large compensation bill for those brought will be offset by the salary saved on the DOF which is now dead and buried. Within this collective he has all he needs. The academy, scouting, fitness, tactical analysis and forward planning; all things football. FSG have control of everything else with their own people and in the end dictate transfer policy by holding the purse strings.

Rodgers track record on bringing in young players, those with untapped potential and experienced pro's on a tight budget would have appealed so they will allow him to manage...for now.

Most importantly though, Rodgers has impressed FSG, they seem smitten with him. He is a PR dream; intelligent, personable with a honeymoon period persona that will extend past the first 5 games. For the matchgoers will like him, the global fanbase will be impressed by his interviews and with two or three signings pre season, not necessarily big names but 'interesting', this will stir the pot. The fog of the Olympics has still to be cleared up though. No one in the English squad will be affected but not sure what other Countries policies are. Could we lose Luis and Seba for example? Then there is the heavily hyped pre season tour in FSG's back yard. All these issues will conspire to test the new manager early doors and how he deals with it will define his future. Good luck to the fellah. So far so good.

[rola]

Vulmea
Like your take on the Segura-Borrell-Rogers axis.  Could work really thinking about.  BR's open admiration for all things Spanish & Barca getting together with two guys steeped in that whole culture.  If anything is going to work, that relationship should and that looks like a good start.

Thinking about how the roles fit together - interact and support each other - consider the scenario where a need is identified to flll the right midfield role in the 1st team.

Technical board gets together.  BR syas he wants to improve that element of the team.  Player A is getting on and can't hack what he wants him to do. Sporting director says player A's agent agitating for an improved deal or threatening to move his player elsewhere.  Agreement reached that he' not worth the money if he can't do what's needed - he can do one if wants.  Sporting director can deal with player A's agent and tell him to do stop dicking the club around and he's welcome to find a new club for his man, providing the meet our valuation.

Player B can play there, but is much better suited to a different role in the team.  No sense moving him and weakening another area.

Technical director gives his take on readiness of any suitable candidates from other ranks of club. Couple of kids in youth fit the profile - attack minded, two footed, quick, good control, and with athletic ability to press defenders without ball.   Ideal candidates, but 3 years minimum away from being ready for senior football - physically & mentally.  Tactically they get it, because they are playing the same role in their junior team as player A is meant to in the 1st's.

Decision: need to recruit.

Talent guy refers to his portfolio.  Got a few possible candidates that might fit. 

Technical Board narrow this down to 2 players who fit the technical & tactical profile.  Both fall into the right age bracket (20-25), which means that they'll be ready for 1st team ready, but still have a potential resale value if and when the two youth players mature. 

Talent guy agrees to draw up more detailed profiles looking at strengths & weaknesses of each player, but also researching background, character. Works closely with Technical on this to determine the extent of the "fit" with what we need, and how much flexibility there is to apt, and what possibilities it might open up to enhance what we currently do.

Sporting director sounds out players clubs and/or agents for an initial approach.  Checks for any difficulties & snags in doing a deal.

Technical board continues to discuss options using info from various sources above. 

get to stage where we talk to players.  This is where the difficulty might arise...conflicting roles....but maybe not.   Rogers does the "human side" - his phrase -he talks to the player, about his philosophy, his vision, his plans for the team.  He listens to player.  They talk football.  BR decides if this is the player for him.  If he is, then sporting director gets the nod and he & the money men sort out a deal with the player's agent and club.  BR doesn't get his hands dirty - I don't care how much you get paid son - in fact, I'm never gonna mention and neither are you.  All I care about is you and what you can do for our team.  Rogers gets to be a football purist, engaged with and engaging his players.  The football pitch is for football - everything else gets left at the door.

It could work. It needs the right people, with the right attitude in the right jobs. 

[rola]

Your instincts are right on the confusion. They may not be on the same page purely because it keeps getting rewritten. My take on it is the thinktank will comprise of the people Rodgers has brought with him plus Segura and maybe Rodolfo. The large compensation bill for those brought will be offset by the salary saved on the DOF which is now dead and buried. Within this collective he has all he needs. The academy, scouting, fitness, tactical analysis and forward planning; all things football. FSG have control of everything else with their own people and in the end dictate transfer policy by holding the purse strings.

Rodgers track record on bringing in young players, those with untapped potential and experienced pro's on a tight budget would have appealed so they will allow him to manage...for now.

Thanks for that. I hadn't looked at it that way. I suppose that's because it looks a bit too similar to the traditional structure at English clubs.  Manager + his team of assistants.  You could be right.  Maybe Rogers has convinced then to do it his way & that group is the collective.  I'm not entirely convinced - I'm sure there will be further appointments to the team.  I reckon FSG see an executive team - they want to have people accountable for specific things - compartmentalising the different elements of the football set up, much as they do the commercial side.

The ex-Barca fella Txixi whatsit, seems like the ideal person for the sporting director role. No intention or desire to encroach on the coaching/management side of things, but could potentially add a lot by taking the strain on anything that takes Rogers away from his players & team. 

[vivabobbygraham]

These days any Coach/manager can be brought down by player power, 'losing the dressing room'. You alienate an influential player in that dressing room and mayhem ensues. Therefore, the collective have to be tight, with no weak links, no clandestine meetings over a drink. First signs of unrest, get rid, it has to be that way.

A club striving to return to the higher echelons of the game are susceptible to this. High turnover of players, coaches in and out,  creates a vacuum where the vacuous reign. Man management is important, ruthless management moreso. Until the titles become plentiful when everyone buys in as a consequence better to clean out any potential hotspots in this area early doors.

You can have the best structure on paper but like a dam one crack and the trickle soon turns to a torrent. The man at the top has to have implicit trust in those around him. Yes, they can argue the toss over this and that but for all the reasons stated in other posts he has to choose those around him.

This was one of the many farcical elements of pre Rodgers. FSG wanting a DOF  yet not having one in place when picking the manager and his team. I'm glad that's now consigned to the dusty bin.

[stoa]

Might be just me.  Anyone got any views on this?  Different take? 
Maybe I've picked this up wrong and its all going to be rainbows and lollipops and everyone happy. Someone scratch this itch.

To be honest, I think this whole debate about our "new" structure was a red-herring all along. I've already posted something like that in this thread I think and I stick with that. The way I see it, what will happen is that BR will be the manager and he'll be in charge of the footballing-side. So, I'd imagine he'll pick the system, tell the coaches how to coach and will say what players can stay and who needs replacing. So far so good. Nothing alien about that. Then you have the people close to him, helping him with scouting, academy, medical-department. They'll discuss what should happen there and the people in charge will make sure that it does. Again, nothing new about that in my view. Then you have the money-men who'll be in charge of the purse and will tell the manager how much money he can spend and who'll make sure that we're getting the right deals. Again, nothing new about that.

I would imagine, that is what is happening everywhere even at clubs where the manager has huge power. Unless someone thinks the Red-Nosed One is visiting their academy on a daily basis to make sure they're doing what he's told them to do. What we'll have in the end is that we'll probably have proper job-descriptions and the roles being made clear by giving people fancy titles, but in the end, I don't think much will change.

And as you're saying whether we're successful will ultimatively depend on whether the people involved in the running of the club will be able to work together. If that's the case we'll be fine. If it's not, then we're fucked no matter what structure there is in place...