@SDAddick Again I disagree. There is no Director of Football based in and paid by CAFC. No one speaks with any authority on the HR needs of the team, from a position of knowledge. That is the flaw. The model is fatally flawed.
Just a bitter ex-employee so we can stick our fingers in our ears say "la la la la la" loudly and pretend we didn't hear this.
Move on.
Nobody says this anymore, they haven't for ages, you don't have to do it on every thread.
I think it's worth reminding those who were so vociferous about it so often, most of whom have never held their hands up and admitted that they were wrong...
Like who? Ive asked this before.
Sorry - are you saying that absolutely no-one ever described Rick as a bitter ex-employee when he was deriding the regime?
I'm not bitter. And I've never worked for the club, yes I had 7 games on loan, but I never really gave we never saw the real Ricky Otto. Please leave me out of this. I can already feel myself doing a JBG, and having a tear run down my cheek.
Okay you know what I am going to say but it is not an opinion or a 'probably' but it is true. Karel Fraeye was not responsible for either recruitment for the network or scouting for Charlton players in particular. As part of the network he may have been asked on occasions to familiarise himself with individual teams and was more involved with the Spanish club. The 'recruitment' was/is done by 2 guys abroad whose names have not been disclosed (for obvious reasons). All I know is that one has 'funny hair'........ Anyway I am enjoying the discussion about management set ups!
Who are these scouting characters ? Why are the names of these influential characters and how they work not shown ? Where is the bleedin' accountability for anything at the club ?
Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?
What?!?! Because the manager manages players he bought. He lives and dies by the players he brings to the club.
The manager not having control of signings undermines his authority
The club's interests and the manager's interests are not aligned - the former is perpetual (in most cases) and the latter has an average career of just a few years.
Managers will always bang the table asking for signings with a near term impact rather than consider the longer term implications for the club.
The concept here is not flawed only the execution.
I don't agree with you. I agree that Harry Redknapp is the living breathing example of what can go wrong with the English system. So the continental system has a Head Coach and a Director of Football, which prevents that abuse of power. But we don't have the latter. No one therefore explains to the Network Coach the particularities of our club and our league. This 'system' bestows ridiculous power and responsibility on one man. And probably, it was as @Weegie Addick suggests, Fraeye.
I strongly suspect that it is not how it works in Watford's network.
As someone else said, it's the execution, not the model, that is flawed. We don't have a chief scout on our books, nor do we have a Director of Football. I've long said that these are, for me, up there with the most criminally negligent acts of the regime.
For me, Luzon is an excellent example of why a manager should never be solely in charge of signings. He was a strict 4-4-2 manager. As such, we signed forwards (Watt, Mak) who needed to play up front with someone else. We also almost exclusively have wingers who provide creativity, like Bulot and JBG did last year, while we still have no creativity from someone who can play centrally.
A good director of football would take the current manager, and their system and preferences into account, but also consider the balance of the squad, the ability to change tactics, injuries, players' personal strengths and weakness (including, very importantly, the ability to settle), etc. This information should come from the scouting team. The Director of Football will also consider the budgetary and financial structuring and implications of signings, advantages of signing one player versus another, as well as potential sell-on value and those kinds of concerns.
There is no manager in the British game, probably few if any managers in the top leagues of world football who are capable of doing the above in addition to coaching a team. DoF should not just be a stand-alone job, it should be a person supported by various people.
Again, this is all how it should be executed.
For what it's worth, I doubt that Fraeye was the "Network Scout" in charge of signings. He had a job managing a club outside the network when we scooped him up, and he was pretty adamant that he had little to do with scouting players for Charlton (in spite of what was said about him). I suspect there's a chief scout attached to STVV who we've never even heard of who makes these decisions.
Agree with everything you say!
Except one small point which isn't really central to your arguments.
You say we had no creativity centrally last year. I disagree actually, I think Buyens was an excellent passer of the ball and had good vision. He picked up a good number of assists last year. Yes he operated from deeper and wasn't an out and out attacking CM but he added another string to our bow and has been dearly missed this year.
We saw the benefit of having him and Bulot alongside JBG as it meant all there of them got space.
@SDAddick Again I disagree. There is no Director of Football based in and paid by CAFC. No one speaks with any authority on the HR needs of the team, from a position of knowledge. That is the flaw. The model is fatally flawed.
Let me clarify, when I say "the model is good," I mean the general model of having a director of football instead of the traditional "Manager" (Redknapp) who does scouting and has ultimate say in transfers.
I completely agree that the model as deployed at Charlton is broken, if not nonexistent. To me, it's one of the biggest signs on Rolland's ineptitude.
I think my previous post may have come across as disagreeing with you when I was actually agreeing with you. Apologies, it's still early here.
RD sees himself as a great reformer. He has redefined the meaning of the word unique / weird and also introduced a new symbol into the language. He is currently redefining the meaning of being part of a club.
We, as the subordinates are not allowed to know his rationale, how the hierarchy is set up, who is responsible, what their duties are, or where one is to apportion blame when things go wrong. In fact anything and everything that might be of interest to a ‘member’ (use the expression loosely) is undisclosed.
Just like the kid with a brand new football who won’t allow anyone else to play he is in danger of finding himself completely isolated.
It’s crazy that dedicated fans on this forum are asking who is the scout, how does he operate, what is the pecking order etc? Why can’t we just have names and roles clearly defined? I’m guessing this is all part of Roland’s ‘fog of war’ as he takes on the world and imposes his superior methodology.
Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?
What?!?! Because the manager manages players he bought. He lives and dies by the players he brings to the club.
The manager not having control of signings undermines his authority
The club's interests and the manager's interests are not aligned - the former is perpetual (in most cases) and the latter has an average career of just a few years.
Managers will always bang the table asking for signings with a near term impact rather than consider the longer term implications for the club.
The concept here is not flawed only the execution.
I don't agree with you. I agree that Harry Redknapp is the living breathing example of what can go wrong with the English system. So the continental system has a Head Coach and a Director of Football, which prevents that abuse of power. But we don't have the latter. No one therefore explains to the Network Coach the particularities of our club and our league. This 'system' bestows ridiculous power and responsibility on one man. And probably, it was as @Weegie Addick suggests, Fraeye.
I strongly suspect that it is not how it works in Watford's network.
As someone else said, it's the execution, not the model, that is flawed. We don't have a chief scout on our books, nor do we have a Director of Football. I've long said that these are, for me, up there with the most criminally negligent acts of the regime.
For me, Luzon is an excellent example of why a manager should never be solely in charge of signings. He was a strict 4-4-2 manager. As such, we signed forwards (Watt, Mak) who needed to play up front with someone else. We also almost exclusively have wingers who provide creativity, like Bulot and JBG did last year, while we still have no creativity from someone who can play centrally.
A good director of football would take the current manager, and their system and preferences into account, but also consider the balance of the squad, the ability to change tactics, injuries, players' personal strengths and weakness (including, very importantly, the ability to settle), etc. This information should come from the scouting team. The Director of Football will also consider the budgetary and financial structuring and implications of signings, advantages of signing one player versus another, as well as potential sell-on value and those kinds of concerns.
There is no manager in the British game, probably few if any managers in the top leagues of world football who are capable of doing the above in addition to coaching a team. DoF should not just be a stand-alone job, it should be a person supported by various people.
Again, this is all how it should be executed.
For what it's worth, I doubt that Fraeye was the "Network Scout" in charge of signings. He had a job managing a club outside the network when we scooped him up, and he was pretty adamant that he had little to do with scouting players for Charlton (in spite of what was said about him). I suspect there's a chief scout attached to STVV who we've never even heard of who makes these decisions.
Agree with everything you say!
Except one small point which isn't really central to your arguments.
You say we had no creativity centrally last year. I disagree actually, I think Buyens was an excellent passer of the ball and had good vision. He picked up a good number of assists last year. Yes he operated from deeper and wasn't an out and out attacking CM but he added another string to our bow and has been dearly missed this year.
We saw the benefit of having him and Bulot alongside JBG as it meant all there of them got space.
Just a point that I think is often overlooked.
We had a great attacking lineup at the end of last season, Igor (albeit unfit) and Watt up front, JBG and Bulot providing the wide threat (with Eagles on the bench), Buyens to pass the ball around AND convert all the penalties (not that we've won penalties this season)
Indeed the recruitment in the summer of 2014 was vastly better than the summer 2015 recruitment, Igor, JBG, Hendo, TBH, Moussa, Bikey (plus Buyens and Bulot on loan) is a far better set of players for the Championship. I don't know whether it's because the "network" scouts got it right then and wrong in 2015, or whether that's the input of Peeters instead of Luzon?
Just a bitter ex-employee so we can stick our fingers in our ears say "la la la la la" loudly and pretend we didn't hear this.
Move on.
Nobody says this anymore, they haven't for ages, you don't have to do it on every thread.
I think it's worth reminding those who were so vociferous about it so often, most of whom have never held their hands up and admitted that they were wrong...
Like who? Ive asked this before.
Sorry - are you saying that absolutely no-one ever described Rick as a bitter ex-employee when he was deriding the regime?
Im saying if people are going to continue making sarky comments about it all, then they should have the bollocks about them to say who they are actually talking about. Plenty of people have held their hands up.
Just a bitter ex-employee so we can stick our fingers in our ears say "la la la la la" loudly and pretend we didn't hear this.
Move on.
Nobody says this anymore, they haven't for ages, you don't have to do it on every thread.
I think it's worth reminding those who were so vociferous about it so often, most of whom have never held their hands up and admitted that they were wrong...
Like who? Ive asked this before.
Sorry - are you saying that absolutely no-one ever described Rick as a bitter ex-employee when he was deriding the regime?
Im saying if people are going to continue making sarky comments about it all, then they should have the bollocks about them to say who they are actually talking about. Plenty of people have held their hands up.
I have not noticed anyone who has done so, but I am sure some have, I am equally sure others haven't Gary. It's aimed at them - if absolutely everyone has apologised, then no one needs to get arsey about it, do they?
Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?
What?!?! Because the manager manages players he bought. He lives and dies by the players he brings to the club.
The manager not having control of signings undermines his authority
The club's interests and the manager's interests are not aligned - the former is perpetual (in most cases) and the latter has an average career of just a few years.
Managers will always bang the table asking for signings with a near term impact rather than consider the longer term implications for the club.
The concept here is not flawed only the execution.
I don't agree with you. I agree that Harry Redknapp is the living breathing example of what can go wrong with the English system. So the continental system has a Head Coach and a Director of Football, which prevents that abuse of power. But we don't have the latter. No one therefore explains to the Network Coach the particularities of our club and our league. This 'system' bestows ridiculous power and responsibility on one man. And probably, it was as @Weegie Addick suggests, Fraeye.
I strongly suspect that it is not how it works in Watford's network.
As someone else said, it's the execution, not the model, that is flawed. We don't have a chief scout on our books, nor do we have a Director of Football. I've long said that these are, for me, up there with the most criminally negligent acts of the regime.
For me, Luzon is an excellent example of why a manager should never be solely in charge of signings. He was a strict 4-4-2 manager. As such, we signed forwards (Watt, Mak) who needed to play up front with someone else. We also almost exclusively have wingers who provide creativity, like Bulot and JBG did last year, while we still have no creativity from someone who can play centrally.
A good director of football would take the current manager, and their system and preferences into account, but also consider the balance of the squad, the ability to change tactics, injuries, players' personal strengths and weakness (including, very importantly, the ability to settle), etc. This information should come from the scouting team. The Director of Football will also consider the budgetary and financial structuring and implications of signings, advantages of signing one player versus another, as well as potential sell-on value and those kinds of concerns.
There is no manager in the British game, probably few if any managers in the top leagues of world football who are capable of doing the above in addition to coaching a team. DoF should not just be a stand-alone job, it should be a person supported by various people.
Again, this is all how it should be executed.
For what it's worth, I doubt that Fraeye was the "Network Scout" in charge of signings. He had a job managing a club outside the network when we scooped him up, and he was pretty adamant that he had little to do with scouting players for Charlton (in spite of what was said about him). I suspect there's a chief scout attached to STVV who we've never even heard of who makes these decisions.
Agree with everything you say!
Except one small point which isn't really central to your arguments.
You say we had no creativity centrally last year. I disagree actually, I think Buyens was an excellent passer of the ball and had good vision. He picked up a good number of assists last year. Yes he operated from deeper and wasn't an out and out attacking CM but he added another string to our bow and has been dearly missed this year.
We saw the benefit of having him and Bulot alongside JBG as it meant all there of them got space.
Just a point that I think is often overlooked.
Yes, a very good point. I was more referring to the recruitment this summer, but we have missed his range of passing.
Come on newshopper get hold of Bob Peters now let's see what he has to say. Or will he never say anything against the president to keep his options open like the mugs Riga and Luzon.
Funny how Luzon didn't go out of his way to apportion credit to the "network scout" after Diarra, Johnson, and Watt showed up in Jan/Feb 2015 and he took us from 20th to 12th last May!
And Pardew showed us how it works when the manager is in control of transfers. Thankfully he is repeating his standard pattern at Palace such that we might meet in the Championship in 18 months time?
I think the issue at Charlton is that we don't know who the faceless people are doing the scouting, so there is no accountability. And I don't think the budgets were high enough last summer. As @Garrymanilow and @newyorkaddick articulate the issue isn't the model but the execution.
When looking at the train wreck that this season has become I would put failure down to several factors: 1) not compensating for the sale of Liege - they supplied four first team players in 2014/15 - Buyens, Bulot, Ben Haim and Watt - no transfer fees 2) not completing the squad - we bought players in July 2015 but nothing after that - I suspect that was because we played so well in August 3) not using the Autumn loan window to cover for injuries to Kashi etc. 4) The appointment of the interim one.
Even after all that we had a chance when Riga arrived and he was given new defenders including Teixeira who played for him at Liege.
But I'm afraid that too many of our more valuable players have been injured or out of form. A director of football might have written up a list of players to improve the outcome and ensure that we were in better shape?
The simple fact is we are bottom six payers so a bottom six outcome is to be expected. What has caught the board out is that the Championship standard has improved. We cannot even compete with teams just up from League 1.
So Luzon having a moan about the guy who employed him for three years tells us very little about why we are where we are. And what happens next.
Riga - Belgian, grey suit, manages to get CPs team over the line and questionable at that point if CP could have done the same as he was not well motivated or treated.
Peeters who was tall, not very imposing, didn't last long my general impression was he wasn't that good.
Luzon was, and probably still is, bat shit crazy. He knew nothing about English football, but he wasn't a fucking idiot.
Fraeye was and probably still is a fucking idiot.
Riga again, still seems pretty clever but it's no good being clever if you are asked to play catch and also know when you agree that you are going to have both hands tied behind your back. Multiple balls hit your face man, how else could it end!
I don’t know whether having a DoF is generally better than not having one. However, I do believe that what is of most importance is picking the right people to fulfil whatever key positions your model requires. In 2011 our model comprised a Manager and, presumably reporting to him, a Chief Scout. The Manager, Chris Powell, did a fantastic job in recruiting virtually a completely new squad of players with good ability and good character, and moulding them into a cohesive group who played for him and each other, and who, week after week, implemented CP’s preferred tactical formation with great discipline. This was done without a DoF, thereby showing that you don’t need such a role at League 1 level. In fact, I think it would be harder to achieve with a DoF, because we introduce the complication of possible conflict of ideas between the two roles.
I suspect you could also implement the model we used in 2011 successfully at Championship level, but we were never to find out whether CP could have done it as the money disappeared before he had a chance to try. Whether you need a DoF at Premiership level is another matter, although it’s not something that I think we need to be planning for just yet.
Network scouts? Unless they have experienced English football at a good level, they are guessing and that's the problem. They have no idea what it takes to play in the English Championship or League One, so they are using stats to justify their recommendations. Stats won't tell you if a player has the bo**ocks to dig in when it's gets tough at Hillsborough or the KC. A good Chief Scout will have the contacts in the game to ask around about the player they are interested in and quite often there will be connections between managers and coaches, particularly ex-colleagues from playing days. Scouts talk to other scouts at games, don't under-estimate the football grapevine. Laptop Scouts have none of that. Assessing Character & Physical Strength is as important as a 95% pass rate in the Portuguese or Belgian Leagues.
In normal circumstances, the Manager, Chief Coach, Chief Scout and other coaches/scouts in the club, will have watched a particular player and all formed an opinion. The manager will have the final say, after all he is the one picking the team, organising the pattern of play and looking to slot the right player in. An experienced manager will know all the players in the 92 clubs anyway, especially those playing in his division, so scouts are sent to check on form and fitness.
Roly thinks he can do it differently The league table tells us he is creating failure. His project isn't working and it is difficult to see how it can, especially with the turn-over of head coaches. How can there ever be continuity on setting a style or pattern of play, when each new coach has his own ideas and a new one comes along every 3 or 4 months. You end up with a collection of individuals and no team unity, which is what we have now. A well organised team will beat a collection of individuals nine times out of ten.
@SDAddick Again I disagree. There is no Director of Football based in and paid by CAFC. No one speaks with any authority on the HR needs of the team, from a position of knowledge. That is the flaw. The model is fatally flawed.
Let me clarify, when I say "the model is good," I mean the general model of having a director of football instead of the traditional "Manager" (Redknapp) who does scouting and has ultimate say in transfers.
I completely agree that the model as deployed at Charlton is broken, if not nonexistent. To me, it's one of the biggest signs on Rolland's ineptitude.
I think my previous post may have come across as disagreeing with you when I was actually agreeing with you. Apologies, it's still early here.
Got it. I think many of us see the advantage of the director of football (e.g. Spurs and pretty much everywhere on the Continent) model. I'm also one of those who sees the potential advantages of the club network model (e.g Watford's mob). But his "model" isn't really either of those. It's basically him making it up as he goes along, his experiment, his plaything. The idea that other clubs have been calling us up to find out how our 'model' works, is beyond laughable.
@SDAddick Again I disagree. There is no Director of Football based in and paid by CAFC. No one speaks with any authority on the HR needs of the team, from a position of knowledge. That is the flaw. The model is fatally flawed.
Let me clarify, when I say "the model is good," I mean the general model of having a director of football instead of the traditional "Manager" (Redknapp) who does scouting and has ultimate say in transfers.
I completely agree that the model as deployed at Charlton is broken, if not nonexistent. To me, it's one of the biggest signs on Rolland's ineptitude.
I think my previous post may have come across as disagreeing with you when I was actually agreeing with you. Apologies, it's still early here.
Got it. I think many of us see the advantage of the director of football (e.g. Spurs and pretty much everywhere on the Continent) model. I'm also one of those who sees the potential advantages of the club network model (e.g Watford's mob). But his "model" isn't really either of those. It's basically him making it up as he goes along, his experiment, his plaything. The idea that other clubs have been calling us up to find out how our 'model' works, is beyond laughable.
Yes, with you on both counts. When Rolland first came in and I heard that he had a network of clubs I thought that could be beneficial. It's something Brentford is looking to do, something Manchester City are doing on an international level, and what the Pozos have done with Watford/Udinese is remarkable (but not on accident, their set-up is world class http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/04/pozzo-family-fuelled-watford-premier-league-dreams).
Because of UK work permit laws, signing young talent from outside the EU can be somewhat difficult, but Network Clubs can help foster players while they gain eligibility for a work permit. Even with the level of STVV and Upjest, I still think there are ways to do it relatively well.
I digress. All of this fuels my anger and frustration with the current regime.
Comments
Bring back Dana
Except one small point which isn't really central to your arguments.
You say we had no creativity centrally last year. I disagree actually, I think Buyens was an excellent passer of the ball and had good vision. He picked up a good number of assists last year. Yes he operated from deeper and wasn't an out and out attacking CM but he added another string to our bow and has been dearly missed this year.
We saw the benefit of having him and Bulot alongside JBG as it meant all there of them got space.
Just a point that I think is often overlooked.
I completely agree that the model as deployed at Charlton is broken, if not nonexistent. To me, it's one of the biggest signs on Rolland's ineptitude.
I think my previous post may have come across as disagreeing with you when I was actually agreeing with you. Apologies, it's still early here.
Good luck at Carl Zeiss Jena though - they do a lovely camera lens.
We, as the subordinates are not allowed to know his rationale, how the hierarchy is set up, who is responsible, what their duties are, or where one is to apportion blame when things go wrong. In fact anything and everything that might be of interest to a ‘member’ (use the expression loosely) is undisclosed.
Just like the kid with a brand new football who won’t allow anyone else to play he is in danger of finding himself completely isolated.
It’s crazy that dedicated fans on this forum are asking who is the scout, how does he operate, what is the pecking order etc? Why can’t we just have names and roles clearly defined? I’m guessing this is all part of Roland’s ‘fog of war’ as he takes on the world and imposes his superior methodology.
Indeed the recruitment in the summer of 2014 was vastly better than the summer 2015 recruitment, Igor, JBG, Hendo, TBH, Moussa, Bikey (plus Buyens and Bulot on loan) is a far better set of players for the Championship. I don't know whether it's because the "network" scouts got it right then and wrong in 2015, or whether that's the input of Peeters instead of Luzon?
* joke.
And Pardew showed us how it works when the manager is in control of transfers. Thankfully he is repeating his standard pattern at Palace such that we might meet in the Championship in 18 months time?
I think the issue at Charlton is that we don't know who the faceless people are doing the scouting, so there is no accountability. And I don't think the budgets were high enough last summer. As @Garrymanilow and @newyorkaddick articulate the issue isn't the model but the execution.
When looking at the train wreck that this season has become I would put failure down to several factors:
1) not compensating for the sale of Liege - they supplied four first team players in 2014/15 - Buyens, Bulot, Ben Haim and Watt - no transfer fees
2) not completing the squad - we bought players in July 2015 but nothing after that - I suspect that was because we played so well in August
3) not using the Autumn loan window to cover for injuries to Kashi etc.
4) The appointment of the interim one.
Even after all that we had a chance when Riga arrived and he was given new defenders including Teixeira who played for him at Liege.
But I'm afraid that too many of our more valuable players have been injured or out of form. A director of football might have written up a list of players to improve the outcome and ensure that we were in better shape?
The simple fact is we are bottom six payers so a bottom six outcome is to be expected. What has caught the board out is that the Championship standard has improved. We cannot even compete with teams just up from League 1.
So Luzon having a moan about the guy who employed him for three years tells us very little about why we are where we are. And what happens next.
is it paulie?
or beyonce?
Riga - Belgian, grey suit, manages to get CPs team over the line and questionable at that point if CP could have done the same as he was not well motivated or treated.
Peeters who was tall, not very imposing, didn't last long my general impression was he wasn't that good.
Luzon was, and probably still is, bat shit crazy. He knew nothing about English football, but he wasn't a fucking idiot.
Fraeye was and probably still is a fucking idiot.
Riga again, still seems pretty clever but it's no good being clever if you are asked to play catch and also know when you agree that you are going to have both hands tied behind your back. Multiple balls hit your face man, how else could it end!
I suspect you could also implement the model we used in 2011 successfully at Championship level, but we were never to find out whether CP could have done it as the money disappeared before he had a chance to try. Whether you need a DoF at Premiership level is another matter, although it’s not something that I think we need to be planning for just yet.
In normal circumstances, the Manager, Chief Coach, Chief Scout and other coaches/scouts in the club, will have watched a particular player and all formed an opinion. The manager will have the final say, after all he is the one picking the team, organising the pattern of play and looking to slot the right player in. An experienced manager will know all the players in the 92 clubs anyway, especially those playing in his division, so scouts are sent to check on form and fitness.
Roly thinks he can do it differently The league table tells us he is creating failure. His project isn't working and it is difficult to see how it can, especially with the turn-over of head coaches. How can there ever be continuity on setting a style or pattern of play, when each new coach has his own ideas and a new one comes along every 3 or 4 months. You end up with a collection of individuals and no team unity, which is what we have now. A well organised team will beat a collection of individuals nine times out of ten.
Who are the Network Scouts? Wanted Dead or Alive.
Because of UK work permit laws, signing young talent from outside the EU can be somewhat difficult, but Network Clubs can help foster players while they gain eligibility for a work permit. Even with the level of STVV and Upjest, I still think there are ways to do it relatively well.
I digress. All of this fuels my anger and frustration with the current regime.