Director of Football Coming In?

[Kenilworth]

We are not anywhere near something that works. So let's not try to move towards something that works and just keep doing the same shit and expecting different results

Here’s the try summat else brigade, the change for changes sake drum beet, as that has to be better then the existing model.
What happens if your DoF is a useless appointment?
Same situation but different shit.

It does work btw, as evident by the fact that we’ve had three promotions in the last 10 years and two of those to the PL.

 

[Kenilworth]

Yeah why not? Nothing good can come from trying to modernise the club.

Modernise is not just a DoF though, is it?
Cat 2 to Cat 1 is a modernisation.

Again the spurious argument as a rebuttal is that I’m against modernisation, I’m not. The DoF is not the answer IMO but it may be a piece of the jigsaw at a later date IF investment and infrastructure warrants one.

You’re all jumping away from one man taking the majority of decisions ( for which he has full accountability) to a structure where one man can make all the decisions with no accountability.

“Oh, but the DoF will have a team of people to help make a decision.”
Yes, so does a manager, but it’s no different - the DoF still has the final say. So, how is that modernising? It’s the same shit with a different coat, only this time you can’t shift the DoF as they hide behind the success or otherwise of the coach/manager in place at that time.

“It’ll be different”
Why will it?
“Because other clubs do it and they’re more modern than us”
Plenty of examples of clubs that have a DoF and have no more success than we have.

“Ah, but the majority of the clubs in the Prem have got one. Ergo, it’s a sure fire way to become successful”
We’re no where near that level in terms of maturity of infrastructure or funding.
I reckon if you analysed the facilities and infrastructure of virtually all those clubs and compared it to SUFC you’ll see why we are punching far above our weight.

 

[Carlton Blade]

What every club wants

Clear accountability
Faster, better decisions
Lower staff churn
Reduced waste in recruitment and wages
A club identity that survives manager changes

This is exactly where United keep tripping themselves up. The club hasn’t really been run, it’s been carried. Recruitment, culture, standards, motivation, even damage limitation have all defaulted to Chris Wilder. When he’s there, things function. When he isn’t, the whole thing collapses because there’s no underlying system doing the work.

That’s the danger of having so much reliance on one person: it feels decisive in the short term, but it’s fragile. You’re always one departure away from chaos, forced into reactive fixes, rushed signings, mismatched squads, staff churn just to stay afloat.

Centralisation of long term decisions isn’t about sidelining a manager. It’s about taking the load off them. A proper structure means the club sets the direction, recruitment follows a plan, and the head coach focuses on coaching. When someone leaves, the machine keeps running.

Right now, United don’t lose a manager, they lose the operating system. And no club competing seriously at Championship or Premier League level can afford to work like that anymore.

 

[brownblade]

Here’s the try summat else brigade, the change for changes sake drum beet, as that has to be better then the existing model.
What happens if your DoF is a useless appointment?
Same situation but different shit.

It does work btw, as evident by the fact that we’ve had three promotions in the last 10 years and two of those to the PL.

Two of those 3 seasons in the Prem we were a laughing stock and miserable to watch... Because the club had zero future planning. Realistically without the first promotion, we wouldn't have got promoted the second time.

You can't possibly pretend the club is well run - maybe look back at all the summer threads from recent years.

Hiring a DoF/Technical team is nothing to be feared. It doesn't have to mean Wilder-out either, unless he's too proud/stubborn to move with the times.

The idea is we always have eyes on future planning - not just short term success. Managers can only really focus on short term success these days, because the managerial merry-go-round has been a thing for about 20 years.

If we hire a Technical team that don't seem very good, we replace them. Ideally we get DoF/Technical team that are good and happy in the job for 5-10 years - not to be poached and not someone/folk looking at us as a stepping stone.

 

[PrestwichBlade]

What every club wants

Clear accountability
Faster, better decisions
Lower staff churn
Reduced waste in recruitment and wages
A club identity that survives manager changes

This is exactly where United keep tripping themselves up. The club hasn’t really been run, it’s been carried. Recruitment, culture, standards, motivation, even damage limitation have all defaulted to Chris Wilder. When he’s there, things function. When he isn’t, the whole thing collapses because there’s no underlying system doing the work.

That’s the danger of having so much reliance on one person: it feels decisive in the short term, but it’s fragile. You’re always one departure away from chaos, forced into reactive fixes, rushed signings, mismatched squads, staff churn just to stay afloat.

Centralisation of long term decisions isn’t about sidelining a manager. It’s about taking the load off them. A proper structure means the club sets the direction, recruitment follows a plan, and the head coach focuses on coaching. When someone leaves, the machine keeps running.

Right now, United don’t lose a manager, they lose the operating system. And no club competing seriously at Championship or Premier League level can afford to work like that anymore.

Yeah, but Watford...

 

[Dkc]

What is being argued is that the current over-concentration of power and responsibility in one role has demonstrably failed — repeatedly — and continuing it is not pragmatism, it’s inertia.

On the contrary, over the past ten years we have over-achieved for a club of our size and budget. We've been crowned League One Champions, been promoted to the PL twice and made the Play Off final last year.

If that's repeated failure, how would you describe the achievements of Birmingham, Swansea, Watford, West Brom, Leicester, Norwich, Bolton, Huddersfield and Charlton over the past decade - all of whom have a DoF in place?

 

[Dkc]

Yeah, but Watford...

It's not just Watford. See post above.

 

[Carlton Blade]

On the contrary, over the past ten years we have over-achieved for a club of our size and budget. We've been crowned League One Champions, been promoted to the PL twice and made the Play Off final last year.

If that's repeated failure, how would you describe the achievements of Birmingham, Swansea, Watford, West Brom, Leicester, Norwich, Bolton, Huddersfield and Charlton over the past decade - all of whom have a DoF in place?

Other than Huddersfield, all those clubs have had more success than United. 1 good PL seasons, 2 disasters, nothing in place on the back of parachute payments.

Football is difficult, the idea is to give yourselves the best chance to succeed. United over performed their financial status in 17/18, 18/19 and 19/20. Other than that it was as expected or worse.

 

[Dkc]

Other than Huddersfield, all those clubs have had more success than United.

Depends how you define success. If you define success as struggling for a few seasons before getting relegated from the PL and having a few mediocre seasons in the Championship before - in the cases of Leicester, Bolton, Huddersfield and Charlton - getting relegated to League One, then they have indeed been far more successful than us.

Others might say that over the past decade these clubs have been on a clear downward trajectory while we've been on a rollercoaster ride full of ups and downs.

I know I'd rather have our record over the past ten years than any of those, even if some might have had more seasons struggling in the bottom half of the PL before being relegated.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Depends how you define success. If you define success as struggling for a few seasons before getting relegated from the PL and having a few mediocre seasons in the Championship before - in the case of Leicester, Bolton, Huddersfield and Charlton - getting relegated to League One, then they have indeed been far more successful than us.

Others might say that over the past decade these clubs have been on a clear downward trajectory.

I know I'd rather have our record over the past ten years than any of those, even if some might have had more seasons struggling in the bottom half of the PL before being relegated.

Leicester won the FA Cup ffs

 

[Dkc]

Leicester won the FA Cup ffs

Of course we all would love to win the cup but I'd rather be in our position than Leicester's today. Them having a DoF in place didn't prevent them becoming a basket case of a club.

 

[Carlton Blade]

I'd rather be in our position than Leicester's today. Them having a DoF in place didn't prevent them becoming a basket case of a club.

Them losing all their funding did that.

The whole "just add a DoF won't do anything" strawman stuff is tiresome. I haven't said that adding one person solves all, I don't think anyone has. Argue the actual points

 

[Kenilworth]

Two of those 3 seasons in the Prem we were a laughing stock and miserable to watch... Because the club had zero future planning. Realistically without the first promotion, we wouldn't have got promoted the second time.

You can't possibly pretend the club is well run - maybe look back at all the summer threads from recent years.

Hiring a DoF/Technical team is nothing to be feared. It doesn't have to mean Wilder-out either, unless he's too proud/stubborn to move with the times.

The idea is we always have eyes on future planning - not just short term success. Managers can only really focus on short term success these days, because the managerial merry-go-round has been a thing for about 20 years.

If we hire a Technical team that don't seem very good, we replace them. Ideally we get DoF/Technical team that are good and happy in the job for 5-10 years - not to be poached and not someone/folk looking at us as a stepping stone.

We got to the prem based on owners luck (hiring Wilder) together with Wilder and his team’s expertise and drive. He wheeled and sealed and made the squad stronger. He had the plan, not the Prince or McCabe. There was no long term planning from the board. They lived from hand to mouth - and we’ve all witnessed that. It was purely the ambition and drive of Wilder and his assistants / coaches. Nothing supported it from board level. All the funds generated were from player sales and winnings on the pitch. No one can possibly refute that.

I can’t see any long term planning from COH. Can you see any?
They appear to be naive and distant and clueless.
They had a bet and it didn’t come in. Then they jerked their collective knees and screwed us up for 2-3 years, minimum (unless Wilder can conjure up another set of rabbits this next season).

What on earth gives you any confidence to think that they would have the nous to 1) have a long term plan in mind, 2) have the funds to drive it, 3) recruit a suitable set of people to deliver their non existent plan?

The DoF?
Who would it be?
An up and coming, yet to make their mark, or an experienced veteran that knows the path and has a track record of unbroken success?
If the former, then why would they be any different to a manager? Wouldn’t it be much more of a gamble, given they would have authority but no accountability?
If the latter, then that would cost an absolute fortune, which we have no evidence to say the COH lads have at their disposal.
Again, if the latter, why on earth would an experienced DoF come to Sheffield United? If they’re not invested emotionally (a fan) then they’d only come for the money.

Our board has stated that it won’t fund Cat 1 unless we have prem money to use to do it.
Thats the evident level of their commitment. Why does anyone, logically, believe that we have the planning or funding to go with an experienced DoF?

It seems to me that the majority of people calling for a DoF do so because they want Wilder out. It’s used as a pretty transparent disguise. Any change will do because they don’t like the current regime. That’s the crux of it.

 

[Kenilworth]

Yeah, but Watford...

Well the churn part illustrates it.
It’s still a case and evidence of how it doesn’t work, regardless of how many times it’s used. There are other examples of it not working but Watford is a peach of an example and I make no excuse for using it as an example because no matter how you wish to denigrate it and belittle it, the fact remains and it is irrefutable.

 

[Kenilworth]

Leicester won the FA Cup ffs

Cheating set of cunts, though.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Cheating set of cunts, though.

They had Luke Thomas playing, so it evens it out

 

[Kenilworth]

Them losing all their funding did that.

Ah, but I thought you said that couldn’t happen. Because:

Clear accountability
Faster, better decisions
Lower staff churn
Reduced waste in recruitment and wages

A club identity that survives manager changes

(Without it) the whole thing collapses because there’s no underlying system doing the work.

That’s the danger of having so much reliance on one person: it feels decisive in the short term, but it’s fragile. You’re always one departure away from chaos, forced into reactive fixes, rushed signings, mismatched squads, staff churn just to stay afloat.

Centralisation of long term decisions isn’t about sidelining a manager. It’s about taking the load off them. A proper structure means the club sets the direction, recruitment follows a plan, and the head coach focuses on coaching. When someone leaves, the machine keeps running.

How many managers did Liester have this season and what was their level of success?

Oops

 

[Kenilworth]

They had Luke Thomas playing, so it evens it out

It that an argument of the actual points, though

 

[Carlton Blade]

Ah, but I thought you said that couldn’t happen. Because:

Clear accountability
Faster, better decisions
Lower staff churn
Reduced waste in recruitment and wages

A club identity that survives manager changes

(Without it) the whole thing collapses because there’s no underlying system doing the work.

That’s the danger of having so much reliance on one person: it feels decisive in the short term, but it’s fragile. You’re always one departure away from chaos, forced into reactive fixes, rushed signings, mismatched squads, staff churn just to stay afloat.

Centralisation of long term decisions isn’t about sidelining a manager. It’s about taking the load off them. A proper structure means the club sets the direction, recruitment follows a plan, and the head coach focuses on coaching. When someone leaves, the machine keeps running.

How many managers did Liester have this season and what was their level of success?

Oops

Point to the part where I said that

 

[Yogi]

This is the problem. Almost all of the structure at the club has been put in place by Wilder, or owes their career to Wilder. In any elite level organisation you need people around the table who are willing to challenge each other and question established ways of working, especially when those ways aren’t working any more.

We’ve seen how chippy Wilder gets the second he comes in for any criticism, even if the criticism is justified and constructive. He’s sniped at ‘punters’, pundits, other managers, players, journos, the lot. Do you imagine he’s any more reserved behind closed doors?

So now you’ve got a team of people that are unlikely to gain employment at a similar level should they leave United. Their careers depend on wilder being in the building. This is why a lot of us are frustrated and believe the existing structure needs to be modernised otherwise we’ll get left behind.

There is so much to do at a modern football club that it cannot be the responsibility of one person, which is why CEOs separate themselves from the football side by employing a technical board. I work for one of the countries largest food production companies, our CEO wouldn’t know which end of the oven the bread goes in, but he doesn’t need too because he’s employed an army of people that understand the equipment, the product and the customer better than he ever could. We have a huge, varied range of experience in our management structure of people that have worked in different environments and bring best practices to the group and challenge established ways of working.

Our squad is an absolute mess, with the third ‘rebuild’ needed in as many years. This is where a technical board can deliver its best work. As much as I wanted Selles to succeed he was doomed to fail. What someone should have done is identified what worked well in wilder’s first stint and identified a manager with similar characteristics, someone like Neil, Eustace (Heckingbottom!), or be developing someone through the youth ranks that can take over (Hecky previously, or Ekhart at Saints).

Wilder will only care about the season in front of him, because his job depends on it, and if doesn’t then we’re really in trouble because that way lays complacency and managed decline. He doesn’t give a shit about United in 5 years, 10 years or 15 years. Thats proven by his behaviour every time he’s been sacked previously.

Completely agree I mean I’d even go so far as to say in the modern game the period of time a manager should be focused on is even less than a season now. Managers don’t get the grace of having a bad year and the board making a decision at the end of the year anymore never mind a 2-3 year stint gone are the days of talk about giving time for players to bed in and managers getting their ideas across. Modern managers live and die based upon 10 game stints if it goes badly wrong across any 10 game patch in a season they’re liable to be fired so it only makes sense that their priorities are short term.

 

[Champagneblade]

Ah, but I thought you said that couldn’t happen. Because:

Clear accountability
Faster, better decisions
Lower staff churn
Reduced waste in recruitment and wages

A club identity that survives manager changes

(Without it) the whole thing collapses because there’s no underlying system doing the work.

That’s the danger of having so much reliance on one person: it feels decisive in the short term, but it’s fragile. You’re always one departure away from chaos, forced into reactive fixes, rushed signings, mismatched squads, staff churn just to stay afloat.

Centralisation of long term decisions isn’t about sidelining a manager. It’s about taking the load off them. A proper structure means the club sets the direction, recruitment follows a plan, and the head coach focuses on coaching. When someone leaves, the machine keeps running.

How many managers did Liester have this season and what was their level of success?

Oops

I’ve been guilty of overthinking this in times past.

Fact is people want a winning team.

They’ll convince themselves whatever method used is the one that works, if it produces results.

If Wilder reintroduced slavery and only Fef the players when they won and we got promoted on the back of it, you’d have folk on message Boards around the country advocating the same.

The diluted accountability is the main issue with DoF. If someone else had picked my staff at work and they started making mistakes I’d be very loathe to accept it was wholeheartedly my fault when they failed to perform. Maybe changing manager would make these deadbeats perform better? Or maybe the problem is the one choosing the deadbeats.

Bale went for 95m. Spurs spectacularly wasted it. Best was probably 11m on Erickson while they spent 30m on Lamela who was rubbish and the Spanish striker who wouldn’t hit a barn door. That was ALL DoF driven, nothing to do with the Head Coach.

So for every Swansea, who had a good run of playing the same way (though perhaps that was the Chairman), and this is admirable, there’s a DoF spaffing cash on shite. Our nearest non manager effort was James Bord and the last summer!

 

[Kenilworth]

Point to the part where I said that

A DoF structured club can’t possibly implode because it’s not down to just one man, like we are.

“They lost their funding,” you stated.
So, which is it, a sustainable, repeatable model or something that you can only implement to any effect if you have loads of spare?

And, if a DoF doesn’t also suffer from dodgy recruitment then why make the comment about Luke Thomas?

 

[Rudders]

Interesting that most of the ‘successful’ clubs referenced are also one city clubs. Or clubs that dominate a local authority area. Both Brentford and Brighton have benefited from wholehearted support and financial aid via property deals that the council have been fully supportive of. Same goes for Leicester and Leeds where the city councils go nuts for the club as they see the benefit to the city. Compare that to how SCC treat us, constantly trying to stand in our way, impede us and promote the pigs. It’s going to be really tricky to build the club up until SCC loses its blue and white stripes.

 

[PrestwichBlade]

It's not just Watford. See post above.

I was largely better sarcastic, because whilst those advocating for a DoF or similar cite Brentford, Brighton et al as the best case example, those against always point to Watford as worst case. Regardless of whether we go down that route, we REALLY need a better structure in place that isn't just so reliant on one role, but in effect, is so reliant on one man. That just isn't healthy

 

[Carlton Blade]

A DoF structured club can’t possibly implode because it’s not down to just one man, like we are.

“They lost their funding,” you stated.
So, which is it, a sustainable, repeatable model or something that you can only implement to any effect if you have loads of spare?

And, if a DoF doesn’t also suffer from dodgy recruitment then why make the comment about Luke Thomas?

Luke Thomas is an academy player. This is peak strawman stuff now. Nobody, especially me has said anything is foolproof. But making the best of your resources over the largest number of transactions is much more likely with consistent, club wide decision making.

Your 'it failed in specific circumstances' argument just illustrates that all systems are fallible, not that the processes adopted by the most successful businesses are not fit for purpose.

 

[The Fox]

The best managers in the world work with a DoF , many appear accepting or welcoming of the structure .

They're obviously all wrong for doing so

 

[Dkc]

I was largely better sarcastic, because whilst those advocating for a DoF or similar cite Brentford, Brighton et al as the best case example, those against always point to Watford as worst case. Regardless of whether we go down that route, we REALLY need a better structure in place that isn't just so reliant on one role, but in effect, is so reliant on one man. That just isn't healthy

Plenty of clubs have a similar structure to ours and are very successful. Some very successful managers prefer to work in a similar way to Wilder. Did Alex Ferguson at Man U, Mourinho at Chelsea or Clough at Forest work under a DoF? Were their fans complaining about the lack of a DoF as the trophies stacked up?

Saying that, I can completely understand the idea that managers should concentrate on doing what they are best at, and should not try to micromanage everything. Team selection, formation, tactics and motivation are key managerial roles. Managers already have help with recruitment, a DoF is not necessary for that.

 

[PrestwichBlade]

Plenty of clubs have a similar structure to ours and are very successful. Some very successful managers prefer to work in a similar way to Wilder. Did Alex Ferguson at Man U, Mourinho at Chelsea or Clough at Forest work under a DoF? Were their fans complaining about the lack of a DoF as the trophies stacked up?

Saying that, I can completely understand the idea that managers should concentrate on doing what they are best at, and should not try to micromanage everything. Team selection, formation, tactics and motivation are key managerial roles. Managers already have help with recruitment, a DoF is not necessary for that.

It's interesting you cite those examples, because look at state of them since they left!

 

[jt64]

Of course we all would love to win the cup but I'd rather be in our position than Leicester's today. Them having a DoF in place didn't prevent them becoming a basket case of a club.

I'd rather have taken the League title, Cup win and European campaigns thanks. Ask any fan of Wigan, Portsmouth, Swansea etc if they would trade their last 20 years for ours. I'm going to guess they would all say no.

 

[Dkc]

I'd rather have taken the League title, Cup win and European campaigns thanks. Ask any fan of Wigan, Portsmouth, Swansea etc if they would trade their last 20 years for ours. I'm going to guess they would all say no.

Of course they would say no. Ask them if they would trade their entire history for ours, they'd say yes. Ask them if they'd trade their past five years for ours, they'd say yes