I thought this was a really good post by Mundell over on ITTV about why clubs have Director of Football or Technical Director roles in modern football…
“ I know it might be fairly obvious and for some fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I’d post a comment on why most modern owners do not give their Manager or Head Coach carte blanche when it comes to player recruitment, preferring instead to operate with a Director of Football (or Technical Director) who works in partnership with a Head Coach while having overall responsibility and accountability for player recruitment and trading.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for this DOF model. The first is that the interests of owner (or investor) and Head Coach are simply not aligned. Most obviously, the Head Coach will want the owner to spend as much money as possible while the owner is likely to want to operate within a budget (or within financial fair play rules) - some may recall the slippery Alan Pardew saying that one of his roles was “to loosen the owners pockets”.
A more problematic misalignment of interests though concerns timeframe and the type of player recruited. The Head Coach will want to sign experienced players in the hope this will deliver immediate success, indifferent to the fact that this may lead to lots of wasted money in the long-term, while an owner might be more inclined to sign younger players with potential, focusing more on value for money and being less concerned about short term results. We don’t know why on earth we resigned Chuks Aneke, but that sort of signing would make a lot more sense to the Head Coach (he might just have helped the club sneak a playoff place) than to the owner (who is then stuck with an expensive long-term contract, long after the Head Coach has moved on). It’s very important to note here that we’re dealing with uncertain outcomes and it’s the different impact of that uncertainty on Head Coach and owner that is critical to the dynamic. It will always pay the Head Coach to gamble because there is nothing to lose. That’s not true for the owner.
The role of the DOF (or in our case Technical Director) is to sit between the owner (investor) and the Head Coach and seek to reconcile their different objectives. If the relationship between Head Coach and DOF works, the Head Coach will be able to make it clear what he needs to succeed while the DOF will seek to ensure that this is done in a way which doesn’t compromise the owner’s objectives. In this ‘model’ the Head Coach needs to be clear what he wants while respecting the parameters within which the DOF is required to operate. The DOF needs to understand the owner’s objectives while making it clear what’s feasible and what the implication of those objectives might be. If there are enough grown ups in the room the result is a coherent strategy which everyone understands, buys into and seeks to execute with confidence.
Second, in the modern game, rightly or wrongly, Head Coaches (or Managers) tend not to stay in their jobs very long. They’re either sacked if they fail or move on to bigger and better things if they succeed. At most clubs Head Coaches are recycled over shorter periods that many of the player contracts being awarded and certainly well within any plausible strategic planning period. If each time a new Head Coach is appointed he’s given free rein to release and sign players in order to build the squad he fancies the result can be endless, expensive turnover and a complete absence of any long-term planning and consistency. The role of the DOF, therefore, is to ensure a degree of continuity and some long-term planning. In part this is about ensuring that when a new Head Coach is appointed he buys into the established playing strategy and doesn’t expect to be given a completely new squad.
It’s very obvious from this that the relationship between Andy Scott and Michael Appleton is absolutely critical. They are in partnership and neither can succeed without the other. Appleton needs to be clear what he needs to succeed, but he needs to be realistic. For his part, Scott needs to translate Appleton’s requirements into a package that fits with the strategy agreed with the owners. The two then need to work together to execute.
Both Scott and Appleton need to behave like consenting adults. Appleton is more likely to lose his job than Scott if results aren’t good, but Scott won’t survive for much longer if it’s perceived thaf the problem is recruitment. We don’t know, for sure, why Dean Holden was sacked but there is certainly a suggestion that having agreed one style of play, and with recruitment targeted accordingly, he then decided to play a different system (3-5-2) which we clearly hadn’t recruited for. You simply can’t run a proverbial ballroom this way and if there’s any truth in this version of events then Scott had no option other than to show Holden a red card. ”
Good post, also football has changed a lot, with fan expectation going through the roof, not only at Charlton but all clubs.. Fans are wanting to clubs to sign 7 to 10 players a summer, so player trading is higher than 15 years ago, where would be 2 or 3 transfers a season, so then it was easier for the manager to also handle this.. DOF or TD is required now, and bigger recruitment teams.
Our biggest issue, is the change of managers, each manager has a different input in the type of squad.. We have the shame now, Holden wanted a younger, smaller squad, and Appleton wants a bigger more experience squad, not only does it cost the club a lot of money to change manager, but then to change tactic of the type of player you want.
In terms of Holden sacking, I agree it had to happen, he was a nice bloke, but we was woeful at the start of the season, and to be honest even when he some in last year, it wasn't great either, he just struck lucky with JRS being in the squad. Appleton for me, is a lot better manager, tactically and for me not scared to make changes!
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
Edun was a free with a sell on clause attached to the deal. Taylor was a compensation payment & Alfie was a mind blowing 250K, hardly heading the big spenders.
This 'one style of play, with recruitment targeted accordingly' sounds a bit primitive. All very well if you're winning, but surely a manager needs to be able to tinker/adapt/change formation when necessary. Just saying
Generally when you’re not winning, it’s not the formation that’s the problem… it’s the players or the coaching.
Well, quite probably, which is why it sounded banal of Scott to say he was sacked because he changed the formation. Does he really think we must be so rigid
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
Edun was a free with a sell on clause attached to the deal. Taylor was a compensation payment & Alfie was a mind blowing 250K, hardly heading the big spenders.
Edun was not a free.
True, although sounds like upfront it was very very little.
"The fee Rovers are set to receive for Edun is understood to be undisclosed. However, the majority of the deal is understood to be sell-on clauses and performance-based add-ons, such as Charlton going up to the Championship"
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
Edun was a free with a sell on clause attached to the deal. Taylor was a compensation payment & Alfie was a mind blowing 250K, hardly heading the big spenders.
Edun was not a free.
True, although sounds like upfront it was very very little.
"The fee Rovers are set to receive for Edun is understood to be undisclosed. However, the majority of the deal is understood to be sell-on clauses and performance-based add-ons, such as Charlton going up to the Championship"
Well surely that is just a sign of someone doing their job. If we want to sign someone and we can get a deal that means that costs etc can be ameliorated and spread out then from a business perspective that's a good thing.
Spending a lot of money up front has no bearing on the quality of the player (or not.) Edun wouldn't be better/worse if more of the fee was a one off spend.
This 'one style of play, with recruitment targeted accordingly' sounds a bit primitive. All very well if you're winning, but surely a manager needs to be able to tinker/adapt/change formation when necessary. Just saying
Generally when you’re not winning, it’s not the formation that’s the problem… it’s the players or the coaching.
Well, quite probably, which is why it sounded banal of Scott to say he was sacked because he changed the formation. Does he really think we must be so rigid
I think Scott is smart enough to know the difference between using a slight formation tweak here and there across a 46 game season and completely abandoning an agreed upon strategy a couple of games into a season.
One looks calculated and purposeful. The other looks like a headless chicken.
I thought this was a really good post by Mundell over on ITTV about why clubs have Director of Football or Technical Director roles in modern football…
“ I know it might be fairly obvious and for some fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I’d post a comment on why most modern owners do not give their Manager or Head Coach carte blanche when it comes to player recruitment, preferring instead to operate with a Director of Football (or Technical Director) who works in partnership with a Head Coach while having overall responsibility and accountability for player recruitment and trading.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for this DOF model. The first is that the interests of owner (or investor) and Head Coach are simply not aligned. Most obviously, the Head Coach will want the owner to spend as much money as possible while the owner is likely to want to operate within a budget (or within financial fair play rules) - some may recall the slippery Alan Pardew saying that one of his roles was “to loosen the owners pockets”.
A more problematic misalignment of interests though concerns timeframe and the type of player recruited. The Head Coach will want to sign experienced players in the hope this will deliver immediate success, indifferent to the fact that this may lead to lots of wasted money in the long-term, while an owner might be more inclined to sign younger players with potential, focusing more on value for money and being less concerned about short term results. We don’t know why on earth we resigned Chuks Aneke, but that sort of signing would make a lot more sense to the Head Coach (he might just have helped the club sneak a playoff place) than to the owner (who is then stuck with an expensive long-term contract, long after the Head Coach has moved on). It’s very important to note here that we’re dealing with uncertain outcomes and it’s the different impact of that uncertainty on Head Coach and owner that is critical to the dynamic. It will always pay the Head Coach to gamble because there is nothing to lose. That’s not true for the owner.
The role of the DOF (or in our case Technical Director) is to sit between the owner (investor) and the Head Coach and seek to reconcile their different objectives. If the relationship between Head Coach and DOF works, the Head Coach will be able to make it clear what he needs to succeed while the DOF will seek to ensure that this is done in a way which doesn’t compromise the owner’s objectives. In this ‘model’ the Head Coach needs to be clear what he wants while respecting the parameters within which the DOF is required to operate. The DOF needs to understand the owner’s objectives while making it clear what’s feasible and what the implication of those objectives might be. If there are enough grown ups in the room the result is a coherent strategy which everyone understands, buys into and seeks to execute with confidence.
Second, in the modern game, rightly or wrongly, Head Coaches (or Managers) tend not to stay in their jobs very long. They’re either sacked if they fail or move on to bigger and better things if they succeed. At most clubs Head Coaches are recycled over shorter periods that many of the player contracts being awarded and certainly well within any plausible strategic planning period. If each time a new Head Coach is appointed he’s given free rein to release and sign players in order to build the squad he fancies the result can be endless, expensive turnover and a complete absence of any long-term planning and consistency. The role of the DOF, therefore, is to ensure a degree of continuity and some long-term planning. In part this is about ensuring that when a new Head Coach is appointed he buys into the established playing strategy and doesn’t expect to be given a completely new squad.
It’s very obvious from this that the relationship between Andy Scott and Michael Appleton is absolutely critical. They are in partnership and neither can succeed without the other. Appleton needs to be clear what he needs to succeed, but he needs to be realistic. For his part, Scott needs to translate Appleton’s requirements into a package that fits with the strategy agreed with the owners. The two then need to work together to execute.
Both Scott and Appleton need to behave like consenting adults. Appleton is more likely to lose his job than Scott if results aren’t good, but Scott won’t survive for much longer if it’s perceived thaf the problem is recruitment. We don’t know, for sure, why Dean Holden was sacked but there is certainly a suggestion that having agreed one style of play, and with recruitment targeted accordingly, he then decided to play a different system (3-5-2) which we clearly hadn’t recruited for. You simply can’t run a proverbial ballroom this way and if there’s any truth in this version of events then Scott had no option other than to show Holden a red card. ”
Good post, also football has changed a lot, with fan expectation going through the roof, not only at Charlton but all clubs.. Fans are wanting to clubs to sign 7 to 10 players a summer, so player trading is higher than 15 years ago, where would be 2 or 3 transfers a season, so then it was easier for the manager to also handle this.. DOF or TD is required now, and bigger recruitment teams.
Our biggest issue, is the change of managers, each manager has a different input in the type of squad.. We have the shame now, Holden wanted a younger, smaller squad, and Appleton wants a bigger more experience squad, not only does it cost the club a lot of money to change manager, but then to change tactic of the type of player you want.
In terms of Holden sacking, I agree it had to happen, he was a nice bloke, but we was woeful at the start of the season, and to be honest even when he some in last year, it wasn't great either, he just struck lucky with JRS being in the squad. Appleton for me, is a lot better manager, tactically and for me not scared to make changes!
The fans desires have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to sign 7-10 players... I'm pretty sure almost everyone would prefer it if we only needed 2/3 each summer, but our constant shit recruitment ensures we have to have a complete rebuild every 12 months and need 7-10 new players just to stand still.
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
Edun was a free with a sell on clause attached to the deal. Taylor was a compensation payment & Alfie was a mind blowing 250K, hardly heading the big spenders.
Edun was not a free.
Shame he is playing like we purchased an ex crock on a free. Hope he has the ability to up it after a run of games.
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
Edun was a free with a sell on clause attached to the deal. Taylor was a compensation payment & Alfie was a mind blowing 250K, hardly heading the big spenders.
Edun was not a free.
Shame he is playing like we purchased an ex crock on a free. Hope he has the ability to up it after a run of games.
I personally feel that Edun is very clever player going forward, is always looking to the play the ball into good areas. Sometimes they are cut out, but he’s progressive and brave.
I thought this was a really good post by Mundell over on ITTV about why clubs have Director of Football or Technical Director roles in modern football…
“ I know it might be fairly obvious and for some fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I’d post a comment on why most modern owners do not give their Manager or Head Coach carte blanche when it comes to player recruitment, preferring instead to operate with a Director of Football (or Technical Director) who works in partnership with a Head Coach while having overall responsibility and accountability for player recruitment and trading.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for this DOF model. The first is that the interests of owner (or investor) and Head Coach are simply not aligned. Most obviously, the Head Coach will want the owner to spend as much money as possible while the owner is likely to want to operate within a budget (or within financial fair play rules) - some may recall the slippery Alan Pardew saying that one of his roles was “to loosen the owners pockets”.
A more problematic misalignment of interests though concerns timeframe and the type of player recruited. The Head Coach will want to sign experienced players in the hope this will deliver immediate success, indifferent to the fact that this may lead to lots of wasted money in the long-term, while an owner might be more inclined to sign younger players with potential, focusing more on value for money and being less concerned about short term results. We don’t know why on earth we resigned Chuks Aneke, but that sort of signing would make a lot more sense to the Head Coach (he might just have helped the club sneak a playoff place) than to the owner (who is then stuck with an expensive long-term contract, long after the Head Coach has moved on). It’s very important to note here that we’re dealing with uncertain outcomes and it’s the different impact of that uncertainty on Head Coach and owner that is critical to the dynamic. It will always pay the Head Coach to gamble because there is nothing to lose. That’s not true for the owner.
The role of the DOF (or in our case Technical Director) is to sit between the owner (investor) and the Head Coach and seek to reconcile their different objectives. If the relationship between Head Coach and DOF works, the Head Coach will be able to make it clear what he needs to succeed while the DOF will seek to ensure that this is done in a way which doesn’t compromise the owner’s objectives. In this ‘model’ the Head Coach needs to be clear what he wants while respecting the parameters within which the DOF is required to operate. The DOF needs to understand the owner’s objectives while making it clear what’s feasible and what the implication of those objectives might be. If there are enough grown ups in the room the result is a coherent strategy which everyone understands, buys into and seeks to execute with confidence.
Second, in the modern game, rightly or wrongly, Head Coaches (or Managers) tend not to stay in their jobs very long. They’re either sacked if they fail or move on to bigger and better things if they succeed. At most clubs Head Coaches are recycled over shorter periods that many of the player contracts being awarded and certainly well within any plausible strategic planning period. If each time a new Head Coach is appointed he’s given free rein to release and sign players in order to build the squad he fancies the result can be endless, expensive turnover and a complete absence of any long-term planning and consistency. The role of the DOF, therefore, is to ensure a degree of continuity and some long-term planning. In part this is about ensuring that when a new Head Coach is appointed he buys into the established playing strategy and doesn’t expect to be given a completely new squad.
It’s very obvious from this that the relationship between Andy Scott and Michael Appleton is absolutely critical. They are in partnership and neither can succeed without the other. Appleton needs to be clear what he needs to succeed, but he needs to be realistic. For his part, Scott needs to translate Appleton’s requirements into a package that fits with the strategy agreed with the owners. The two then need to work together to execute.
Both Scott and Appleton need to behave like consenting adults. Appleton is more likely to lose his job than Scott if results aren’t good, but Scott won’t survive for much longer if it’s perceived thaf the problem is recruitment. We don’t know, for sure, why Dean Holden was sacked but there is certainly a suggestion that having agreed one style of play, and with recruitment targeted accordingly, he then decided to play a different system (3-5-2) which we clearly hadn’t recruited for. You simply can’t run a proverbial ballroom this way and if there’s any truth in this version of events then Scott had no option other than to show Holden a red card. ”
Good post, also football has changed a lot, with fan expectation going through the roof, not only at Charlton but all clubs.. Fans are wanting to clubs to sign 7 to 10 players a summer, so player trading is higher than 15 years ago, where would be 2 or 3 transfers a season, so then it was easier for the manager to also handle this.. DOF or TD is required now, and bigger recruitment teams.
Our biggest issue, is the change of managers, each manager has a different input in the type of squad.. We have the shame now, Holden wanted a younger, smaller squad, and Appleton wants a bigger more experience squad, not only does it cost the club a lot of money to change manager, but then to change tactic of the type of player you want.
In terms of Holden sacking, I agree it had to happen, he was a nice bloke, but we was woeful at the start of the season, and to be honest even when he some in last year, it wasn't great either, he just struck lucky with JRS being in the squad. Appleton for me, is a lot better manager, tactically and for me not scared to make changes!
The fans desires have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to sign 7-10 players... I'm pretty sure almost everyone would prefer it if we only needed 2/3 each summer, but our constant shit recruitment ensures we have to have a complete rebuild every 12 months and need 7-10 new players just to stand still.
Having 4/5 season loans has also played a part, it’s now expected at this level. Youth players breaking through also move on much more quickly who then need replacing.
We probably haven’t signed 2-5 first team players in a summer since the Curbs era?
It did cross my mind that Chris Powell was only offered the post on a temporary basis to see if he could obey orders.
Maybe he saw the writing on the wall. I mean, he'd probably had enough of people picking the team for him. Andy Scott likes to rule the roost from what I've seen.
I thought this was a really good post by Mundell over on ITTV about why clubs have Director of Football or Technical Director roles in modern football…
“ I know it might be fairly obvious and for some fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I’d post a comment on why most modern owners do not give their Manager or Head Coach carte blanche when it comes to player recruitment, preferring instead to operate with a Director of Football (or Technical Director) who works in partnership with a Head Coach while having overall responsibility and accountability for player recruitment and trading.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for this DOF model. The first is that the interests of owner (or investor) and Head Coach are simply not aligned. Most obviously, the Head Coach will want the owner to spend as much money as possible while the owner is likely to want to operate within a budget (or within financial fair play rules) - some may recall the slippery Alan Pardew saying that one of his roles was “to loosen the owners pockets”.
A more problematic misalignment of interests though concerns timeframe and the type of player recruited. The Head Coach will want to sign experienced players in the hope this will deliver immediate success, indifferent to the fact that this may lead to lots of wasted money in the long-term, while an owner might be more inclined to sign younger players with potential, focusing more on value for money and being less concerned about short term results. We don’t know why on earth we resigned Chuks Aneke, but that sort of signing would make a lot more sense to the Head Coach (he might just have helped the club sneak a playoff place) than to the owner (who is then stuck with an expensive long-term contract, long after the Head Coach has moved on). It’s very important to note here that we’re dealing with uncertain outcomes and it’s the different impact of that uncertainty on Head Coach and owner that is critical to the dynamic. It will always pay the Head Coach to gamble because there is nothing to lose. That’s not true for the owner.
The role of the DOF (or in our case Technical Director) is to sit between the owner (investor) and the Head Coach and seek to reconcile their different objectives. If the relationship between Head Coach and DOF works, the Head Coach will be able to make it clear what he needs to succeed while the DOF will seek to ensure that this is done in a way which doesn’t compromise the owner’s objectives. In this ‘model’ the Head Coach needs to be clear what he wants while respecting the parameters within which the DOF is required to operate. The DOF needs to understand the owner’s objectives while making it clear what’s feasible and what the implication of those objectives might be. If there are enough grown ups in the room the result is a coherent strategy which everyone understands, buys into and seeks to execute with confidence.
Second, in the modern game, rightly or wrongly, Head Coaches (or Managers) tend not to stay in their jobs very long. They’re either sacked if they fail or move on to bigger and better things if they succeed. At most clubs Head Coaches are recycled over shorter periods that many of the player contracts being awarded and certainly well within any plausible strategic planning period. If each time a new Head Coach is appointed he’s given free rein to release and sign players in order to build the squad he fancies the result can be endless, expensive turnover and a complete absence of any long-term planning and consistency. The role of the DOF, therefore, is to ensure a degree of continuity and some long-term planning. In part this is about ensuring that when a new Head Coach is appointed he buys into the established playing strategy and doesn’t expect to be given a completely new squad.
It’s very obvious from this that the relationship between Andy Scott and Michael Appleton is absolutely critical. They are in partnership and neither can succeed without the other. Appleton needs to be clear what he needs to succeed, but he needs to be realistic. For his part, Scott needs to translate Appleton’s requirements into a package that fits with the strategy agreed with the owners. The two then need to work together to execute.
Both Scott and Appleton need to behave like consenting adults. Appleton is more likely to lose his job than Scott if results aren’t good, but Scott won’t survive for much longer if it’s perceived thaf the problem is recruitment. We don’t know, for sure, why Dean Holden was sacked but there is certainly a suggestion that having agreed one style of play, and with recruitment targeted accordingly, he then decided to play a different system (3-5-2) which we clearly hadn’t recruited for. You simply can’t run a proverbial ballroom this way and if there’s any truth in this version of events then Scott had no option other than to show Holden a red card. ”
Good post, also football has changed a lot, with fan expectation going through the roof, not only at Charlton but all clubs.. Fans are wanting to clubs to sign 7 to 10 players a summer, so player trading is higher than 15 years ago, where would be 2 or 3 transfers a season, so then it was easier for the manager to also handle this.. DOF or TD is required now, and bigger recruitment teams.
Our biggest issue, is the change of managers, each manager has a different input in the type of squad.. We have the shame now, Holden wanted a younger, smaller squad, and Appleton wants a bigger more experience squad, not only does it cost the club a lot of money to change manager, but then to change tactic of the type of player you want.
In terms of Holden sacking, I agree it had to happen, he was a nice bloke, but we was woeful at the start of the season, and to be honest even when he some in last year, it wasn't great either, he just struck lucky with JRS being in the squad. Appleton for me, is a lot better manager, tactically and for me not scared to make changes!
The fans desires have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to sign 7-10 players... I'm pretty sure almost everyone would prefer it if we only needed 2/3 each summer, but our constant shit recruitment ensures we have to have a complete rebuild every 12 months and need 7-10 new players just to stand still.
Well, that is never going to happen, players have more power now and wanting signing on fees, meaning they only sign 1 to 2 year deals, gives more freedom to move.. So thee will also be the expectation of the fans to sign a lot of players. Lot of our signings have been good on paper, but for what ever reason, not worked out as well as we would have helped.. Some times you have to look at the manager, and the player themselves, it isn't always down to recruitment team!
It is a lot hard to recruit, the right type of players. Ipswich as an example, yes the recruited well, but they have also had a lot of signings that haven't worked out! But they seem to go unnoticed.. If you throw enough shit at the wall some will stick
I hope Appleton's honest comments about big changes needed in the squad have not caused the excuses PR campaign to start before the January transfer window even opens.
Not sure what the consensus is in Scott. There seems to be a wide variety of views on here.
Am I right in thinking these are his signings? I may well have missed some, and added some that weren’t his.
L Watson, T, Watson, Walker, T Taylor, Edun, Isted, T Watson, Penny, Thomas, Kane, Tedic, Hector and Jones? [+M. Bonne]
Leaving Walker to one side it looks to me like Penny and Kane are the only proper duds. [+M. Bonne]
T Taylor is supposed to be good, but in his brief appearances looked to be yet another lightweight midfielder (but hope to be wrong about that). Isted looks pretty average.
Jones seems a very good, solid CB. Hector totally splits opinion, but if he continues his recent improvement we can probably all agree that he’s pretty decent T. Watson and Edun are growing on me recently having had my doubts. If we can get better, then fine. L Watson could be decent, but is MA getting the best out of him? He started well, but seems to be going backwards.
Thomas does a job, and has looked quite good in his favoured CB role. Useful on the bench as he can play LB as well. Tedic is almost a dud. He tries at least. I don’t see that as shocking recruitment, but it’s also not amazing. Just my opinion of course.
For me the problem is the lack of physicality in midfield. Improve that and we’ll be less easy to bully, and should improve defensively.
A Santos type at CB would make a big difference, but what are the chances.
Another striker would be great, but I suspect they’ll use Kanu as a stop gap. Hope to be proved wrong on that.
I thought this was a really good post by Mundell over on ITTV about why clubs have Director of Football or Technical Director roles in modern football…
“ I know it might be fairly obvious and for some fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I’d post a comment on why most modern owners do not give their Manager or Head Coach carte blanche when it comes to player recruitment, preferring instead to operate with a Director of Football (or Technical Director) who works in partnership with a Head Coach while having overall responsibility and accountability for player recruitment and trading.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for this DOF model. The first is that the interests of owner (or investor) and Head Coach are simply not aligned. Most obviously, the Head Coach will want the owner to spend as much money as possible while the owner is likely to want to operate within a budget (or within financial fair play rules) - some may recall the slippery Alan Pardew saying that one of his roles was “to loosen the owners pockets”.
A more problematic misalignment of interests though concerns timeframe and the type of player recruited. The Head Coach will want to sign experienced players in the hope this will deliver immediate success, indifferent to the fact that this may lead to lots of wasted money in the long-term, while an owner might be more inclined to sign younger players with potential, focusing more on value for money and being less concerned about short term results. We don’t know why on earth we resigned Chuks Aneke, but that sort of signing would make a lot more sense to the Head Coach (he might just have helped the club sneak a playoff place) than to the owner (who is then stuck with an expensive long-term contract, long after the Head Coach has moved on). It’s very important to note here that we’re dealing with uncertain outcomes and it’s the different impact of that uncertainty on Head Coach and owner that is critical to the dynamic. It will always pay the Head Coach to gamble because there is nothing to lose. That’s not true for the owner.
The role of the DOF (or in our case Technical Director) is to sit between the owner (investor) and the Head Coach and seek to reconcile their different objectives. If the relationship between Head Coach and DOF works, the Head Coach will be able to make it clear what he needs to succeed while the DOF will seek to ensure that this is done in a way which doesn’t compromise the owner’s objectives. In this ‘model’ the Head Coach needs to be clear what he wants while respecting the parameters within which the DOF is required to operate. The DOF needs to understand the owner’s objectives while making it clear what’s feasible and what the implication of those objectives might be. If there are enough grown ups in the room the result is a coherent strategy which everyone understands, buys into and seeks to execute with confidence.
Second, in the modern game, rightly or wrongly, Head Coaches (or Managers) tend not to stay in their jobs very long. They’re either sacked if they fail or move on to bigger and better things if they succeed. At most clubs Head Coaches are recycled over shorter periods that many of the player contracts being awarded and certainly well within any plausible strategic planning period. If each time a new Head Coach is appointed he’s given free rein to release and sign players in order to build the squad he fancies the result can be endless, expensive turnover and a complete absence of any long-term planning and consistency. The role of the DOF, therefore, is to ensure a degree of continuity and some long-term planning. In part this is about ensuring that when a new Head Coach is appointed he buys into the established playing strategy and doesn’t expect to be given a completely new squad.
It’s very obvious from this that the relationship between Andy Scott and Michael Appleton is absolutely critical. They are in partnership and neither can succeed without the other. Appleton needs to be clear what he needs to succeed, but he needs to be realistic. For his part, Scott needs to translate Appleton’s requirements into a package that fits with the strategy agreed with the owners. The two then need to work together to execute.
Both Scott and Appleton need to behave like consenting adults. Appleton is more likely to lose his job than Scott if results aren’t good, but Scott won’t survive for much longer if it’s perceived thaf the problem is recruitment. We don’t know, for sure, why Dean Holden was sacked but there is certainly a suggestion that having agreed one style of play, and with recruitment targeted accordingly, he then decided to play a different system (3-5-2) which we clearly hadn’t recruited for. You simply can’t run a proverbial ballroom this way and if there’s any truth in this version of events then Scott had no option other than to show Holden a red card. ”
Good post, also football has changed a lot, with fan expectation going through the roof, not only at Charlton but all clubs.. Fans are wanting to clubs to sign 7 to 10 players a summer, so player trading is higher than 15 years ago, where would be 2 or 3 transfers a season, so then it was easier for the manager to also handle this.. DOF or TD is required now, and bigger recruitment teams.
Our biggest issue, is the change of managers, each manager has a different input in the type of squad.. We have the shame now, Holden wanted a younger, smaller squad, and Appleton wants a bigger more experience squad, not only does it cost the club a lot of money to change manager, but then to change tactic of the type of player you want.
In terms of Holden sacking, I agree it had to happen, he was a nice bloke, but we was woeful at the start of the season, and to be honest even when he some in last year, it wasn't great either, he just struck lucky with JRS being in the squad. Appleton for me, is a lot better manager, tactically and for me not scared to make changes!
The fans desires have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to sign 7-10 players... I'm pretty sure almost everyone would prefer it if we only needed 2/3 each summer, but our constant shit recruitment ensures we have to have a complete rebuild every 12 months and need 7-10 new players just to stand still.
Well, that is never going to happen, players have more power now and wanting signing on fees, meaning they only sign 1 to 2 year deals, gives more freedom to move.. So thee will also be the expectation of the fans to sign a lot of players. Lot of our signings have been good on paper, but for what ever reason, not worked out as well as we would have helped.. Some times you have to look at the manager, and the player themselves, it isn't always down to recruitment team!
It is a lot hard to recruit, the right type of players. Ipswich as an example, yes the recruited well, but they have also had a lot of signings that haven't worked out! But they seem to go unnoticed.. If you throw enough shit at the wall some will stick
It's certainly not happening when you change managers and philosophy twice a year. Get those 2 sorted and you cut your recruitment needs in half.
I think Scott said at Bromley Addicks that he wasn't responsible for some of the signings you've listed there but maybe somebody who attended can clarify
I think Scott said at Bromley Addicks that he wasn't responsible for some of the signings you've listed there but maybe somebody who attended can clarify
The basic idea behind the technical director/head coach model is that it supposedly minimises disruption
If the club controls recruitment and dictates the playing philosophy, an incoming coach (Appleton) has neither reason nor remit to rip things up and start from scratch
However noises after last Saturday from Appleton would say him and Scott need to working from the same list and agree on it come next month
I think Scott said at Bromley Addicks that he wasn't responsible for some of the signings you've listed there but maybe somebody who attended can clarify
The last 4 through the door he certainly was - Both Watson’s, Tedic and Abankwah
"Ultimately, however, [Scott] admitted that him and Rodwell were in charge of the Jan '23 window (Penny, [Bonne!], Kane, Thomas and Hector in) and were only involved with the summer window after the acquisition of the club went through (ie did not bring in Alfie May) meaning we can thank them for Tedic, Abankwah and Chem Campbell."
If true, that record is woeful.
What doesn't quite add up is why TS would be spending money on fees when he was leaving the club imminently.
This 'one style of play, with recruitment targeted accordingly' sounds a bit primitive. All very well if you're winning, but surely a manager needs to be able to tinker/adapt/change formation when necessary. Just saying
Generally when you’re not winning, it’s not the formation that’s the problem… it’s the players or the coaching.
Add the manager and the recruitment team to that, then you're about right.
This 'one style of play, with recruitment targeted accordingly' sounds a bit primitive. All very well if you're winning, but surely a manager needs to be able to tinker/adapt/change formation when necessary. Just saying
Generally when you’re not winning, it’s not the formation that’s the problem… it’s the players or the coaching.
Add the manager and the recruitment team to that, then you're about right.
That was implied - if the players aren’t up to it, recruitment should do better and if the coaching isn’t up to scratch it’s the head coach and his team, because they’re not responsible for transfers/recruitment. :-)
I thought this was a really good post by Mundell over on ITTV about why clubs have Director of Football or Technical Director roles in modern football…
“ I know it might be fairly obvious and for some fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I’d post a comment on why most modern owners do not give their Manager or Head Coach carte blanche when it comes to player recruitment, preferring instead to operate with a Director of Football (or Technical Director) who works in partnership with a Head Coach while having overall responsibility and accountability for player recruitment and trading.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for this DOF model. The first is that the interests of owner (or investor) and Head Coach are simply not aligned. Most obviously, the Head Coach will want the owner to spend as much money as possible while the owner is likely to want to operate within a budget (or within financial fair play rules) - some may recall the slippery Alan Pardew saying that one of his roles was “to loosen the owners pockets”.
A more problematic misalignment of interests though concerns timeframe and the type of player recruited. The Head Coach will want to sign experienced players in the hope this will deliver immediate success, indifferent to the fact that this may lead to lots of wasted money in the long-term, while an owner might be more inclined to sign younger players with potential, focusing more on value for money and being less concerned about short term results. We don’t know why on earth we resigned Chuks Aneke, but that sort of signing would make a lot more sense to the Head Coach (he might just have helped the club sneak a playoff place) than to the owner (who is then stuck with an expensive long-term contract, long after the Head Coach has moved on). It’s very important to note here that we’re dealing with uncertain outcomes and it’s the different impact of that uncertainty on Head Coach and owner that is critical to the dynamic. It will always pay the Head Coach to gamble because there is nothing to lose. That’s not true for the owner.
The role of the DOF (or in our case Technical Director) is to sit between the owner (investor) and the Head Coach and seek to reconcile their different objectives. If the relationship between Head Coach and DOF works, the Head Coach will be able to make it clear what he needs to succeed while the DOF will seek to ensure that this is done in a way which doesn’t compromise the owner’s objectives. In this ‘model’ the Head Coach needs to be clear what he wants while respecting the parameters within which the DOF is required to operate. The DOF needs to understand the owner’s objectives while making it clear what’s feasible and what the implication of those objectives might be. If there are enough grown ups in the room the result is a coherent strategy which everyone understands, buys into and seeks to execute with confidence.
Second, in the modern game, rightly or wrongly, Head Coaches (or Managers) tend not to stay in their jobs very long. They’re either sacked if they fail or move on to bigger and better things if they succeed. At most clubs Head Coaches are recycled over shorter periods that many of the player contracts being awarded and certainly well within any plausible strategic planning period. If each time a new Head Coach is appointed he’s given free rein to release and sign players in order to build the squad he fancies the result can be endless, expensive turnover and a complete absence of any long-term planning and consistency. The role of the DOF, therefore, is to ensure a degree of continuity and some long-term planning. In part this is about ensuring that when a new Head Coach is appointed he buys into the established playing strategy and doesn’t expect to be given a completely new squad.
It’s very obvious from this that the relationship between Andy Scott and Michael Appleton is absolutely critical. They are in partnership and neither can succeed without the other. Appleton needs to be clear what he needs to succeed, but he needs to be realistic. For his part, Scott needs to translate Appleton’s requirements into a package that fits with the strategy agreed with the owners. The two then need to work together to execute.
Both Scott and Appleton need to behave like consenting adults. Appleton is more likely to lose his job than Scott if results aren’t good, but Scott won’t survive for much longer if it’s perceived thaf the problem is recruitment. We don’t know, for sure, why Dean Holden was sacked but there is certainly a suggestion that having agreed one style of play, and with recruitment targeted accordingly, he then decided to play a different system (3-5-2) which we clearly hadn’t recruited for. You simply can’t run a proverbial ballroom this way and if there’s any truth in this version of events then Scott had no option other than to show Holden a red card. ”
Good post, also football has changed a lot, with fan expectation going through the roof, not only at Charlton but all clubs.. Fans are wanting to clubs to sign 7 to 10 players a summer, so player trading is higher than 15 years ago, where would be 2 or 3 transfers a season, so then it was easier for the manager to also handle this.. DOF or TD is required now, and bigger recruitment teams.
Our biggest issue, is the change of managers, each manager has a different input in the type of squad.. We have the shame now, Holden wanted a younger, smaller squad, and Appleton wants a bigger more experience squad, not only does it cost the club a lot of money to change manager, but then to change tactic of the type of player you want.
In terms of Holden sacking, I agree it had to happen, he was a nice bloke, but we was woeful at the start of the season, and to be honest even when he some in last year, it wasn't great either, he just struck lucky with JRS being in the squad. Appleton for me, is a lot better manager, tactically and for me not scared to make changes!
The fans desires have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to sign 7-10 players... I'm pretty sure almost everyone would prefer it if we only needed 2/3 each summer, but our constant shit recruitment ensures we have to have a complete rebuild every 12 months and need 7-10 new players just to stand still.
Well, that is never going to happen, players have more power now and wanting signing on fees, meaning they only sign 1 to 2 year deals, gives more freedom to move.. So thee will also be the expectation of the fans to sign a lot of players. Lot of our signings have been good on paper, but for what ever reason, not worked out as well as we would have helped.. Some times you have to look at the manager, and the player themselves, it isn't always down to recruitment team!
It is a lot hard to recruit, the right type of players. Ipswich as an example, yes the recruited well, but they have also had a lot of signings that haven't worked out! But they seem to go unnoticed.. If you throw enough shit at the wall some will stick
So to summarise the last 400 posts and the next 400 posts:
The two previous windows have not been good.
This has left our squad poor and unbalanced.
Responsibility for the last two windows may or may not be the fault of Scott.
Regardless, this window needs to be much better.
This is either unlikely because Scott and/or the regime are useless and/or penny pinching or possible as Scott has a good track record and will now have time and money.
Comments
Our biggest issue, is the change of managers, each manager has a different input in the type of squad.. We have the shame now, Holden wanted a younger, smaller squad, and Appleton wants a bigger more experience squad, not only does it cost the club a lot of money to change manager, but then to change tactic of the type of player you want.
In terms of Holden sacking, I agree it had to happen, he was a nice bloke, but we was woeful at the start of the season, and to be honest even when he some in last year, it wasn't great either, he just struck lucky with JRS being in the squad. Appleton for me, is a lot better manager, tactically and for me not scared to make changes!
Does he really think we must be so rigid
True, although sounds like upfront it was very very little.
"The fee Rovers are set to receive for Edun is understood to be undisclosed. However, the majority of the deal is understood to be sell-on clauses and performance-based add-ons, such as Charlton going up to the Championship"
Spending a lot of money up front has no bearing on the quality of the player (or not.) Edun wouldn't be better/worse if more of the fee was a one off spend.
One looks calculated and purposeful. The other looks like a headless chicken.
We probably haven’t signed 2-5 first team players in a summer since the Curbs era?
Maybe he saw the writing on the wall. I mean, he'd probably had enough of people picking the team for him. Andy Scott likes to rule the roost from what I've seen.
It is a lot hard to recruit, the right type of players. Ipswich as an example, yes the recruited well, but they have also had a lot of signings that haven't worked out! But they seem to go unnoticed.. If you throw enough shit at the wall some will stick
Leaving Walker to one side it looks to me like Penny and Kane are the only proper duds. [+M. Bonne]
Isted looks pretty average.
Hector totally splits opinion, but if he continues his recent improvement we can probably all agree that he’s pretty decent
T. Watson and Edun are growing on me recently having had my doubts. If we can get better, then fine.
L Watson could be decent, but is MA getting the best out of him? He started well, but seems to be going backwards.
Tedic is almost a dud. He tries at least.
I don’t see that as shocking recruitment, but it’s also not amazing. Just my opinion of course.
For me the problem is the lack of physicality in midfield. Improve that and we’ll be less easy to bully, and should improve defensively.
I think Scott said at Bromley Addicks that he wasn't responsible for some of the signings you've listed there but maybe somebody who attended can clarify
If the club controls recruitment and dictates the playing philosophy, an incoming coach (Appleton) has neither reason nor remit to rip things up and start from scratch
However noises after last Saturday from Appleton would say him and Scott need to working from the same list and agree on it come next month
I also found the original post @JamesSeed. From @Athletico Charlton
"Ultimately, however, [Scott] admitted that him and Rodwell were in charge of the Jan '23 window (Penny, [Bonne!], Kane, Thomas and Hector in) and were only involved with the summer window after the acquisition of the club went through (ie did not bring in Alfie May) meaning we can thank them for Tedic, Abankwah and Chem Campbell."
If true, that record is woeful.
What doesn't quite add up is why TS would be spending money on fees when he was leaving the club imminently.
So really only the following?
Penny, Bonne, Kane, Tedic & Abankwah: Duds
Thomas, Hector & Chem Campbell: OK
Andy Scott gave a line to the piece on Taylor, and Edun was billed as "the first signing of the new ownership era"
The two previous windows have not been good.
This has left our squad poor and unbalanced.
Responsibility for the last two windows may or may not be the fault of Scott.
Regardless, this window needs to be much better.
This is either unlikely because Scott and/or the regime are useless and/or penny pinching or possible as Scott has a good track record and will now have time and money.
Roll on 1 January