McMenemy on DoF in Guardian

[Long Shot]

For all you non-Guardian readers out there

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/oct/29/1

[trousers]

"Lawrie McMenemy, former director of football at Southampton

 

The title director of football, or sporting director, has one meaning here and another on the continent. The old-fashioned English idea has worked in the past. When I worked as director of football at Southampton with a young manager in Alan Ball, it was about working together: I no longer wanted to manage but was able to pass on my experience and mentor Alan; he was able to work at a higher level in the game yet still have someone to lean on.

 

It worked because in that kind of role as director of football I was able to act as a link between the manager and the board of directors without interfering in what he was trying to do. There were obviously times when, having been a manager for more than 1,000 games at club and international level you would have done something different but you have to bite your lip. You can put your point of view but the manager has to have the final say on team selection and the bringing of players to the club. The only reason I was called director of football is that someone in the club decided I had to have a title and I was already a director on the board.

 

Viewing it from a distance, it would appear that continental-style sporting directors have not worked in England, particularly at Newcastle. On paper, the combination of Kevin Keegan and Dennis Wise should have worked: they both had experience of football management. As to why the set-up didn't work, Kevin didn't appoint Dennis and even if he had approved of the appointment it would appear that he didn't answer to Kevin in terms of player recruitment. The manager didn't have the say that he should have. That was the crux of the problem.

 

I was one of three managers, including Bobby Robson and Brian Clough, who had success in the game at clubs where we remained for 12 to 18 years. None of our directors would have dreamed of interfering on the football side. We would do all the player recruitment ourselves with staff and scouts and would conduct all the player negotiations ourselves.

 

Of course things have changed in today's game and even at Manchester United and Arsenal where the managers have been there for many years, Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger need assistance to fulfil the roles they would have done themselves years ago. Players are recruited from around the world and the manager doesn't have the time to be haggling over contracts.

 

However, many of our clubs have structures that work perfectly well. The sporting director's responsibilities are simply split and fulfilled by chairmen, chief executives and chief scouts. The chief executive or chairman can get involved with the negotiations over contracts, the chief scout and his network will find players to look at - it's simply the titles that are different.

 

In terms of finding players, the role has to be taken on by someone the manager trusts, usually somebody they have appointed. The only time the directors should come in in terms of recruitment is when it comes to whether a club can afford the player or not. No one wants anything that goes over the manager's head. Harry Redknapp is making all the right noises going into Tottenham. He doesn't need a director of football, he just needs a trusted chief scout to find the players for him."

[SaintRobbie]

Lawrie Mac making a veiled attack on Lowe with his position in this article methinks.

 

Not surprising... indeed quite clever.

 

I think the answer to this debate is 'it depends who it is'. If your DoF is a footballing genious who is very well connected internationally as well as in the UK then you're laughing. If it's Rupert Lowe giving the kids a pep talk before last nights game I'd afriad it is a joke of a system.

 

Traditional British management works still in the English game unless you have a very well thought of DoF. There are not many DoFs in English football who are well thought of or who have the international transfer experience to make it work. So the answer for Saints?

 

Go back to a traditional manager set up ... NP wouldve given us that system and I suspect we all know we wouldnt be going down quite as dramatically as we are now.

 

DoF at Saints is an arrogant failing businessman who wont admit he's a failure. Can't be healthy.

[dubai_phil]

Although Lawrie is no longer the right man for the role, I REALLY feel he identifies a crucial gap in our structure. I've said it a few times on here already, that -

 

When I worked as director of football at Southampton with a young manager in Alan Ball, it was about working together: I no longer wanted to manage but was able to pass on my experience and mentor Alan; he was able to work at a higher level in the game yet still have someone to lean on.

 

It worked because in that kind of role as director of football I was able to act as a link between the manager and the board of directors without interfering in what he was trying to do. There were obviously times when, having been a manager for more than 1,000 games at club and international level you would have done something different but you have to bite your lip. You can put your point of view but the manager has to have the final say on team selection and the bringing of players to the club. The only reason I was called director of football is that someone in the club decided I had to have a title and I was already a director on the board.

 

I see no issue with Rupert doing the contracts side. I see no issue with scouts and the like identifying players, but I see that whole Board to manager bit round the wrong way at this time as well as JP needing that mentor around.

 

This is what we should have done before the season started, I have more than an idea as to why it didn't though, and not just the cost.....

[slickmick]

Lawrie and Bally were a one off. They both had a lot of respect for each other, thats why it worked so well. You only have to look at Newcastle to see how wrong it could go, with Wise and Keegans personalities clashing.

[St Paul]

Very good article from the big man, talking a lot of sense.

 

I've no problem with having a role as he described, only thing is, if Rupert is doing it, he should come out and say, rather than trying to do it on the sly............

[CB Fry]

What a surprise to see the following line from the big man, for possibly the millionth time:

 

"I was one of three managers, including Bobby Robson and Brian Clough, who had success in the game at clubs where we remained for 12 to 18 years".

 

 

Yes Lawrie was our most successful manager, and probably always will, but he never was, and never, ever will be in the same class as those two. McMenemy was reasonably successful at one club, once.

 

Robson and Clough were world class managers who repeated their success at more than one club and reached the very pinnacle of their professions. And both of them extended their careers a hell of a lot longer than Lawrie did.

 

But it never stops the big man dropping their names alongside his every single time he gets a chance. Just a small thing, but it really annoys me.

 

Other than that, an interesting article - Him and Bally really did work brilliantly, such a shame it didn't go on longer than it did.

[Badger]

Lawrie and Bally were a one off. They both had a lot of respect for each other, thats why it worked so well. You only have to look at Newcastle to see how wrong it could go, with Wise and Keegans personalities clashing.

 

In truth though the Lawrie and Ball partnership worked well for us initially,but it still fell apart.

 

Wasn't Bally meant to have told some reporters at a press conference something along the lines of " don't ask me ,ask Lawrie.I'm only a coach around here".

 

Don't forget the manner of AB's departure,before judging the DoF role.In Lawrie's tenure as DoF,we saw a turnover of four managers.So my conclusion on the DoF role is even when it said to work well,it has still not run smoothly.

[Long Shot]

What a surprise to see the following line from the big man, for possibly the millionth time:

 

"I was one of three managers, including Bobby Robson and Brian Clough, who had success in the game at clubs where we remained for 12 to 18 years".

 

 

Yes Lawrie was our most successful manager, and probably always will, but he never was, and never, ever will be in the same class as those two. McMenemy was reasonably successful at one club, once.

 

Robson and Clough were world class managers who repeated their success at more than one club and reached the very pinnacle of their professions. And both of them extended their careers a hell of a lot longer than Lawrie did.

 

But it never stops the big man dropping their names alongside his every single time he gets a chance. Just a small thing, but it really annoys me.

 

Other than that, an interesting article - Him and Bally really did work brilliantly, such a shame it didn't go on longer than it did.

 

 

Quite agree - it is a shame he can't keep his ego in check, I still feel he could do a job for us somewhere but SMS aint big enough.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Very good article from the big man, talking a lot of sense.

 

I've no problem with having a role as he described, only thing is, if Rupert is doing it, he should come out and say, rather than trying to do it on the sly............

 

How shocking that you should infer that RL does things on the sly. I cannot think of one thing he's done on the sly.

 

 

 

Apart from maybe, in my opinion only, a reverse takeover?

 

:cool:

[FloridaMarlin]

Funny how it worked and was successful when Lawrie did it wth Ballie, but in every other instance it was doomed to failure, according to the Big Man.

 

Ballie signed Peter Whiston when Lawrie's back was turned, and there was hell to pay when the Big Man returned. Don't recall Ballie being given use of the club cheque book without adult supervision after that.

 

Ask the question - while being happy to work as a DoF himself, would Lawrie have tolerated the imposition of one to work with him?

[Frank's cousin]

Its like all these things - what makes any structure work is clear lines of responsibilty thats all, and importantly that everyone understands them when they are first appointed and happy with it. The continental system where elected presidents and DoFs buy players and then p-resent these to the head coach to work with can work.... at clubs where the players bought would be on any coach's wish list! When you are buying Messi, Beckham, Ronaldo etc any 'manager' going to object?

 

Where it does not work is where there is a limited budget and a manager needs to identify what he needs to suit the style of play they want - what gaps need filling and what personalities ned shipping in or shipping out where these decisons are a very difficult and fine balance on compromising say talent of players for character and professionalism or experience. The blending process if you like. I dont think any managers are too worried if they can say Identify they need Joe Blogs and John Doe and then get the DoF to go and get them and negotiate contracts etc - that woudl work (unless ythey miss the brown envelope that used to sweeten deals - is it any wonder that old school amangers all to a man say they should be the ones negotiating?;-))

 

And most managers would also understand that if their requests can not be met because the club can simply not afford it or the persanl demands are too high - where they dont and throufgh a hissy fit, it really bugs me - afterall the mark of a tryuely great coach and manager is being able to IMPROVE what he has - get teh best form the squad and get them to play the tactics as a solid unit ...at 'the end of the day'

[Frank's cousin]

Its like all these things - what makes any structure work is clear lines of responsibilty thats all, and importantly that everyone understands them when they are first appointed and happy with it. The continental system where elected presidents and DoFs buy players and then p-resent these to the head coach to work with can work.... at clubs where the players bought would be on any coach's wish list! When you are buying Messi, Beckham, Ronaldo etc any 'manager' going to object?

 

Where it does not work is where there is a limited budget and a manager needs to identify what he needs to suit the style of play they want - what gaps need filling and what personalities ned shipping in or shipping out where these decisons are a very difficult and fine balance on compromising say talent of players for character and professionalism or experience. The blending process if you like. I dont think any managers are too worried if they can say Identify they need Joe Blogs and John Doe and then get the DoF to go and get them and negotiate contracts etc - that woudl work (unless ythey miss the brown envelope that used to sweeten deals - is it any wonder that old school amangers all to a man say they should be the ones negotiating?;-))

 

And most managers would also understand that if their requests can not be met because the club can simply not afford it or the persanl demands are too high - where they dont and throufgh a hissy fit, it really bugs me - afterall the mark of a tryuely great coach and manager is being able to IMPROVE what he has - get teh best form the squad and get them to play the tactics as a solid unit ...at 'the end of the day'

[Wade Garrett]

Most directors of football are put there to destabilize the manager. It doesn't work. Let a manager manage, make him responsible for all football decisions and let a chief exec take care of contracts.

 

The problem is the boundaries get muddied, and the DOF tries to take over. Last week you even had the owner picking Dowie's side shortly before Dowie resigned.

 

Leave the football to the professionals. Leave the contracts to the businessmen.

[Wade Garrett]

Most directors of football are put there to destabilize the manager. It doesn't work. Let a manager manage, make him responsible for all football decisions and let a chief exec take care of contracts.

 

The problem is the boundaries get muddied, and the DOF tries to take over. Last week you even had the owner picking Dowie's side shortly before Dowie resigned.

 

Leave the football to the professionals. Leave the contracts to the businessmen.

[Thedelldays]

Most directors of football are put there to destabilize the manager. It doesn't work. Let a manager manage, make him responsible for all football decisions and let a chief exec take care of contracts.

 

The problem is the boundaries get muddied, and the DOF tries to take over. Last week you even had the owner picking Dowie's side shortly before Dowie resigned.

 

Leave the football to the professionals. Leave the contracts to the businessmen.

 

 

in england.......

[Lord Duckhunter]

Funny how it worked and was successful when Lawrie did it wth Ballie, but in every other instance it was doomed to failure, according to the Big Man.

 

 

Bally's Managerial career was hardly an all round sucsses. His best spell was with Lawrie alongside him...........

[up and away]

Originally Posted by slickmick

Lawrie and Bally were a one off. They both had a lot of respect for each other, thats why it worked so well. You only have to look at Newcastle to see how wrong it could go, with Wise and Keegans personalities clashing.

]In truth though the Lawrie and Ball partnership worked well for us initially,but it still fell apart.

 

Wasn't Bally meant to have told some reporters at a press conference something along the lines of " don't ask me ,ask Lawrie.I'm only a coach around here".

 

Don't forget the manner of AB's departure,before judging the DoF role.In Lawrie's tenure as DoF,we saw a turnover of four managers.So my conclusion on the DoF role is even when it said to work well,it has still not run smoothly.

 

You just have to laugh at this ******. The very qualities that make a lot of these managers very successful when hands on, make them an absolute disaster at any other position of standing within the football club. That obstinacy and right if wrong attitude can work if followed by discipline, even if the tactics are adrift. I don't know of any one who worked under Lawrie post manager who had a good word to say about him. Bally kept complaining that all he did was argue about the team selection and John Mcgrath would of been happier chinning him than shaking hands. Lawrie was a meddler, bully and ego. Great qualities for a manager and what gave Saints our glory years, but away from that, more destructive than constructive.