Thanks for the reply woodsy
It's good that were having a debate about this I think- which is what I wanted really....since it's such a big change to the way that football clubs have traditionally been run
I've listed the possible demerits of the system, along with my perceptions ( which may of course be wrong) - I'd be interested to hear what others think though, who might take a different view to me
There are some interesting issues which arise from the structure I think
Contrary views to mine, would be welcome
I note that some clubs who started to use this system ( millwall) have subsequently abandoned it
The system discounts the need for experience- so that we get into the situation in which we found ourselves in this season- 5 consecutive home defeats with a 'head coach' with no experience of management at the helm
That's not to say that this situation wouldn't have arisen if there had been an experienced manager at the helm- but my perception would be that it would be less likely . Why - hindsight and reflection.simply because an experienced manager would have been through that sort of experience before, probably, and would know how to handle it better than a novice coach ? Why ? Because experience is valuable isnt it ? Because if we are sensible we reflect on our performances ( whatever job we each happen to do) the last time we came across a similar situation including what we did right and also what we did wrong the last time- so that next time we come across a similar situation, we handle it better.
I have a few issues with the idea of a young coach. Where is there room for an experienced older head in this system ? And because of that- and this is my concern- I think it will make us weaker as a football club going forward.
I can see the potential benefits to an owner for example, in having a director of football who is hands- on.
Another issue is this - when does a director-of- football become accountable ? I note stoke changed theirs this season.Having said all that I am grateful for all the work that neil dewsnip has done this season.
Would people be happy to see another learner appointed, when there are so many good experienced managers available ?
Would be happy to hear from people who take a contrary view to me, as I think this major change in the way football teams are being structured and run, is a legitimate subject for debate amongst fans.....
There was a really interesting post about the value of experience recently, my apologies to the poster that I can't remember who it was, but the contribution was extremely useful nonetheless. Essentially, it's not as valuable as we might think.
For every Foster, there is a Schumacher (and like the A-Team, if you can find them, a McKenna), so I don't believe ending up with one sort rather than the other is down to how long they've been a manager before.
After all, a lot of the experienced types have been through the exact same experience several times, yet they never change anything in their approach and just rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, and so on. Someone like Paul Lambert, for example, seems to have done exactly the same things at all of the clubs he got the sack from. He has a lot of experience but has never changed, so has he learned anything from that experience?
I feel the last thing we want is someone who does thing a certain way because that's the way they've always done them. Schumacher was, at least from my point of view, extremely flexible of mind and prepared to think outside the box to seek any kind of advantage.
The way the Championship is, such frequent changes of manager/head coach, means that numerous clubs are effectively starting from square one
at least twice a season. Having a consistent approach throughout the club, but sometimes having to appoint a different individual to steer that approach seems like a sensible thing in comparison, to me anyway. That is the biggest factor in favour of having a Director of Football. As for when they are accountable, I would imagine every time there's a board meeting.
Not related to your post, but I agree entirely with WoodsyGreen. It's crazy the way Neil Dewsnip is painted as some wannabe dictator and anything positive he has done, such as probably agreeing it was a good idea to replace Ryan Lowe with his assistant, is completely ignored.