The biggest issue at the club.

[The Fox]

Director of Football

When Clubs appoint a Coach or a Manager, there is more or less universally a Track Record. How that person has performed in previous jobs, even if that is at a lower level, at Youth level, or in a different country. And there will be some knowledge of the philosophy/strategy/style of that prospective manager. Or indeed, if they have proved themselves flexible in a variety of situations.

Genuine Question - how do you appoint a Director of Football? Is there like a list of those who are out of a job, and may be available for appointment? Are there performance stats for Directors and what they have achieved?

Do you look at ex Managers, who might be suitable. I get, but don't agree with, the idea of a DoF at Sheffield United. But, genuinely interested in how we might go about finding the right one.

Its pretty much like selecting a manager, you go down the football food chain and find one you can poach from elsewhere.

Same as any job its track record ,experience., philosophy , being the right fit .

And like managers you dont always get it right .

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Its pretty much like selecting a manager, you go down the football food chain and find one you can poach from elsewhere.

Same as any job its track record ,experience., philosophy , being the right fit .

And like managers you dont always get it right .

You can measure a Manager's track record by games won, points gained, etc. Are we saying you use those things for DoF as well? Or are there other metrics? And surely, the pool of managers you can recruit from is huge. That doesn't seem the case to me with DoF. I feel like there's something I'm missing.

 

[The Fox]

You can measure a Manager's track record by games won, points gained, etc. Are we saying you use those things for DoF as well? Or are there other metrics? And surely, the pool of managers you can recruit from is huge. That doesn't seem the case to me with DoF. I feel like there's something I'm missing.

I know its out of our league but man utd poached Dan Ashworth , he didnt fit but he clearly had a way of doing things and a track record they admired.
Edu went from Arsenal to forest etc .

I suppose there are people who maje a name for themselves in that capacity and like any role have knowledge and skills to do it at other clubs .

Chief execs at clubs also move around .

It appears to be pretty similar to any other business or so it seams .

 

[MadDad38]

Wilder will be here next season because the owners can’t afford to risk another bad appointment and who can blame them they’ve been very badly advised before the best thing that they can do to help the club and themselves is back Wilder as much as they can in the transfer market, there will be comings and going’s a plenty other teams will always sniff round the best players offering them better options and we will have to sell to buy.

Hi Chris - give the lads a kick up the arse before the Norwich game please - Saturday was well tedious .

 

[I should coco]

Nail on head there.

The number of fans who think "we need a DOF" all problems sorted.

Many clubs including Barnsley have. or have had a DOF. Where did it propel them to?

Who is in charge of appointing the DOF? the same people who appointed Selles?
Though many have said that Selles talked a good game.

The world is full of bullshit salesmen.

What is required is people who make a difference, and achieve.

Not those who can talk shit Ad infinitum.

Ruben Selles is available again after his third sacking in twelve months and Danny Rohl is rumored to be close to the edge. Both having been proclaimed to be the new dawn of Sheffield football.

Appoint either Selles or Rohl, and as long as the DoF isn't Jamie Hoyland, I think the Wilder haters will lap it up.

You can measure a Manager's track record by games won, points gained, etc. Are we saying you use those things for DoF as well? Or are there other metrics? And surely, the pool of managers you can recruit from is huge. That doesn't seem the case to me with DoF. I feel like there's something I'm missing.

The DoF can point to all the good 'unseen work', if the results aren't great. That's what kept the inept ones in place for years at Celtic, Rangers, Norwich etc,
As long as you talk a good game and mention 'foundations' and 'building for the long term', job's a good un.

 

[KMC-1889]

DoF/Sporting Committees have become more popular as managers can't be trusted to build squads in the best interests of the club, their sole focus is on short term performance because most of them will be out of a job if results turn sour. This led to various clubs (and we've seen it trotted out this season with us) where the manager 'doesn't have his own team'. You then begin the cycle of losing a load of money on the players you bought for the last manager and recruiting new players the current manager wants.

The idea is to decentralise this power and build an identity that goes beyond the current first team manager so when you reach the end of the road with that manager you know what 'type' of manager you need to recruit that can work with the players you already have. It also prevents the manager signing players he just likes (even if their a bad fit) or because he's doing his agent mate a favour.

For example, if we were serious about the Out Run, Out Fight, Out Play that we had plastered across the ground at one point (which I agree, is the United I want to see) then our recruitment model would include players with the physical profile to out run and out fight most teams, not the bunch of lightweight crocks we have at the moment. If the path to sustainability is via developing youth players to sell onto the premier league then surely it makes sense to recruit a manager with a track record of developing youth?

As for selection, it's pretty much the same process as recruiting a manager. You want someone that's worked in the football environment at successful clubs but maybe isn't cut out for management or coaching. The best example of this is David Weir, tragic manager for us but went on to oversee a massive period of success as DoF at Brighton.

 

[KMC-1889]

May 2024, recruitment 'reshuffle'.

Our recruitment hasn't been great for quite some time, however I believe recently, since Hoyland and Allen joined their mate Wilder, it couldn't have gone much worse.

Incomings since they arrived:
Rated them Bad/Mid/Good. Obviously my opinion, yours may differ, but can't see them being far off.

Permanent 24/25
Jamie Shackleton - Bad
Sam McCallum - Mid (would have been bad, but picked up this season.
Kieffer Moore - Bad (maybe tad hard, but was never a good fit)
Callum O'Hare - Good
Harrison Burrows - Mid (opposite to McCallum)
Tyrese Campbell - Mid (same as above)
Michael Cooper - Mid (same as above)
Tom Cannon - Bad
Jefferson Cáceres - Bad
Christian Nwachukwu - Bad

Loans 24/25
Harry Souttar - Good
Alfie Gilchrist - Bad
Jesurun Rak-Sakyi - Good
Ben Brereton Diaz - Bad
Hamza Choudhury - Mid
Harry Clarke - Bad
Rob Holding - Bad (hadn't played first team football for two years, hardly featured)

Permanent 25/26
Ehije Ukaki - Bad
Mihail Polendakov- Bad
Nils Zätterström - Bad
Danny Ings - Bad
Japhet Tanganga - Mid
Tahith Chong - Bad
Alex Matos - Bad
Mark McGuinness - Bad
Ben Mee - Bad/Mid
Jaïro Riedewald - Good
Patrick Bamford - Good

Loans 25/26
Tyler Bindon - Mid (generous)
Louie Barry - Bad
Djibril Soumaré - Mid (again generous)
Ben Godfrey - Bad
Chiedozie Ogbene - Bad
Ki-Jana Hoever - (too early to judge, not looking great)

So out of 33 incomings, I'd say:
5 have been good.
9 have been mid.
19 have been bad.

The thing is, the 'good' signings, 3 have been free transfers, 2 loans.
Every player we have spent a fee on, has been a bad signing (in my opinion).

Some of the signings are absolutely bewildering.
'Bad' is far too kind.

Every serious football fan in the land could have told you, before they signed with us:
Shackleton is shit/lightweight.
McGuiness is a terrible footballer and slow.
Ings' legs have gone.
Ogbene had lost his pace after a serious injury.
Ben Godfrey was finished.
Chong - see Shackleton.
Matos - nowhere near championship standard.
Cannon - Awful all round game, no stand out attributes.

How much 'scouting' did these players actually require?

We needed a massive change of direction in the summer, from the bottom to the top.
Just changing the front man and expecting things to change was absolutely fucking stupid.

Wilder's roots are entwined so deep in this club, it's going one way. Buckle in, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

It get's even worse if you go back and cover his years at Everton.

If he hadn't played in the same team as WIlder in the 90s he'd be out of a job.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

DoF/Sporting Committees have become more popular as managers can't be trusted to build squads in the best interests of the club, their sole focus is on short term performance because most of them will be out of a job if results turn sour. This led to various clubs (and we've seen it trotted out this season with us) where the manager 'doesn't have his own team'. You then begin the cycle of losing a load of money on the players you bought for the last manager and recruiting new players the current manager wants.

The idea is to decentralise this power and build an identity that goes beyond the current first team manager so when you reach the end of the road with that manager you know what 'type' of manager you need to recruit that can work with the players you already have. It also prevents the manager signing players he just likes (even if their a bad fit) or because he's doing his agent mate a favour.

For example, if we were serious about the Out Run, Out Fight, Out Play that we had plastered across the ground at one point (which I agree, is the United I want to see) then our recruitment model would include players with the physical profile to out run and out fight most teams, not the bunch of lightweight crocks we have at the moment. If the path to sustainability is via developing youth players to sell onto the premier league then surely it makes sense to recruit a manager with a track record of developing youth?

As for selection, it's pretty much the same process as recruiting a manager. You want someone that's worked in the football environment at successful clubs but maybe isn't cut out for management or coaching. The best example of this is David Weir, tragic manager for us but went on to oversee a massive period of success as DoF at Brighton.

I posed a question about the pool of DoFs, and how you recruit from it. A few posters have addressed my question. Thanks.

But, I'm sorry, doesn't this amount to ....

You have to place the long term future of the club on a longshot appointment of someone who has not been very good as a coach and/or manager.

And. I've got an elephant in my room ... it just doesn't sound as much fun as having a "traditional" manager. It sounds all sanitised and boardroom and even rather elitist.

 

[KMC-1889]

And. I've got an elephant in my room ... it just doesn't sound as much fun as having a "traditional" manager. It sounds all sanitised and boardroom and even rather elitist.

what other organisation lets people waste tens of millions of other peoples money in search of 'fun'?

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

what other organisation lets people waste tens of millions of other peoples money in search of 'fun'?

I'm comfortable with my view being a minority view. Of course I want my club to be conventionally successful - goals, points, medals. But I don't need that success. It's not all that important to me. Not as important as having a club I can identify with. Not as important as having a club that I enjoy watching. Not as important as having fun. That's what I'm buying with my money. I understand that is not everyone's view.

 

[HillStreet Blade]

what other organisation lets people waste tens of millions of other peoples money in search of 'fun'?

Disney. Many examples.

 

[Upton_Blade]

DoF/Sporting Committees have become more popular as managers can't be trusted to build squads in the best interests of the club, their sole focus is on short term performance because most of them will be out of a job if results turn sour. This led to various clubs (and we've seen it trotted out this season with us) where the manager 'doesn't have his own team'. You then begin the cycle of losing a load of money on the players you bought for the last manager and recruiting new players the current manager wants.

The idea is to decentralise this power and build an identity that goes beyond the current first team manager so when you reach the end of the road with that manager you know what 'type' of manager you need to recruit that can work with the players you already have. It also prevents the manager signing players he just likes (even if their a bad fit) or because he's doing his agent mate a favour.

For example, if we were serious about the Out Run, Out Fight, Out Play that we had plastered across the ground at one point (which I agree, is the United I want to see) then our recruitment model would include players with the physical profile to out run and out fight most teams, not the bunch of lightweight crocks we have at the moment. If the path to sustainability is via developing youth players to sell onto the premier league then surely it makes sense to recruit a manager with a track record of developing youth?

As for selection, it's pretty much the same process as recruiting a manager. You want someone that's worked in the football environment at successful clubs but maybe isn't cut out for management or coaching. The best example of this is David Weir, tragic manager for us but went on to oversee a massive period of success as DoF at Brighton.

Great post.

Brentford and Brighton are the perfect examples of where the highlighted formula has worked really well.

Not saying we have to go down that route at all costs but we should at least have some sort of idea of what happens when Wilder finally leaves for good as he won't be here forever, as much as some on this board would love him to be.

Proper succession planning is how successful businesses operate.

Unfortunately due to us doing none of that it's been a disaster both times he left previously.

At the very least we should be compiling a list of managers who are the most similar from a tactics, formations etc point of view. The last 2 times he has left we have gone for someone almost the polar opposite and expected them to be successful with a squad that has Wilder's finger prints over every inch of it. It was never going to work and, quite frankly, whoever thought it would should have been out on their ear.

 

[KMC-1889]

At the very least we should be compiling a list of managers who are the most similar from a tactics, formations etc point of view. The last 2 times he has left we have gone for someone almost the polar opposite and expected them to be successful with a squad that has Wilder's finger prints over every inch of it. It was never going to work and, quite frankly, whoever thought it would should have been out on their ear.

Hecky is a similar manager and no surprise that he was just as successful as Wilder, he was perfect for the team we had in place and just needed to make a few small additions.

 

[Godbeblade]

Wilder isn't capable of putting a system in place behind the scenes, this is where your DoF comes in and we haven't got one...

Maybe I mis-spoke, Wilder wouldn't put the system in himself but he'd have to allow a new/different way of working at the club and maybe accept that his voice isn't the only one in the conversation.

I don't know how other clubs do it up and down the leagues and it might just be because we're not great this year but we do seem to go up for a bit, down for a bit before ending up about 8th in the championship haha

 

[The Fox]

I'm comfortable with my view being a minority view. Of course I want my club to be conventionally successful - goals, points, medals. But I don't need that success. It's not all that important to me. Not as important as having a club I can identify with. Not as important as having a club that I enjoy watching. Not as important as having fun. That's what I'm buying with my money. I understand that is not everyone's view.

I hear you and lots will agree .

Its not beyond possibility to have both, some might say both is essential.
A club thats well run and a club the supporters identify with .
Like many I thought when DoF's came in it sounded like a daft idea.
However running the whole football side of the organisation is just too big a job for a manager of the 1st team who needs to focus just on that .
Added to which the cost of players and mostly salaries has a huge effect on the whole club , as does developing and selling talent at the right time .

Many clubs have come to that conclusion and having someone accountable and strategic at board level is the way they've gone.

It may be the way we go and I can understand the reasoning , just as I can see the risks.

Id be surprised if its not on the table for discussion at least .

 

[Tom Bott]

You could argue that James Bord was given a temporary position as DOF during the summer. Overseeing the appointment of a new manager and squad refresh.
Using cutting edge AI to make 'faultless' decisions.

On the plus side of appointing a DOF it gives the fans another scapegoat.

As for long term stability the following article is interesting.

Despite the strategic importance of the role, tenure remains remarkably short. The average Sporting Director lasts just 2.6 years. La Liga leads in stability, with an average of 3.7 years, while the Premier League sits at the lowest, with an average of 1.8 years. These timeframes raise questions about expectations and how success is measured.

Mapping Sporting Directors: Football decision-maker trends across Europe’s “Big Five” leagues

We explore the prevalence of former players, the balance between internal and external appointments, the surprisingly short average tenure of just 2.6 years, and how nationality and experience vary across markets.

footballbenchmark.com

 

[MadDad38]

You could argue that James Bord was given a temporary position as DOF during the summer. Overseeing the appointment of a new manager and squad refresh.
Using cutting edge AI to make 'faultless' decisions.

On the plus side of appointing a DOF it gives the fans another scapegoat.

As for long term stability the following article is interesting.

Mapping Sporting Directors: Football decision-maker trends across Europe’s “Big Five” leagues

We explore the prevalence of former players, the balance between internal and external appointments, the surprisingly short average tenure of just 2.6 years, and how nationality and experience vary across markets.

footballbenchmark.com

I'd argue it was more that he filled in as chief scout.

 

[CarlMcBlade]

Wilder will be here next season because the owners can’t afford to risk another bad appointment and who can blame them they’ve been very badly advised before the best thing that they can do to help the club and themselves is back Wilder as much as they can in the transfer market, there will be comings and going’s a plenty other teams will always sniff round the best players offering them better options and we will have to sell to buy.

Yes, their “take risks, fail fast” strategy, had them looking quite foolish in the end…They’ll probably take a more risk averse approach from now on.

 

[VictoryBlade]

As I said, it was my opinion, yours is different. Doesn't mean either one of us are incorrect (there's no issue with us thinking each other are incorrect though of course).

My opinion was based on what I feel they've displayed during their time with the club.
You've stated players are picking up, just off the back of one good win.
For example, McGuinness has been dog turd most of the season, yet had a relatively decent game (against a poor striker) so now you've said he's picking up.

Burrows - Has improved ever so slightly since Wilder's return, but that's coincided with him becoming second choice and not seeing many minutes. He's still woeful defensively and not great athletically. McCallum has excelled this season, whereas he was poor last season.

Campbell - Is one of the most unfit players we've had on our books for a long time. I disagree that he's picked up since Wilder's return, if anything, he's going the other way, especially recently. Obviously strikers are judged on goals, he did pretty decently in that respect last season, with a 1 in 3 average. 1 in 5 average this season, with 2 of his 5 goals being against one of the worst teams in history. He's not scored in over 2 months. The stories from Stoke fans about his laziness/fitness levels are starting to ring true.
Just watch his work rate, with pressing etc compared to someone like Bamford (even Cannon is getting better at pressing these days).

Cooper - Was great last season, bad this season (last couple of games he's looked more like last season's version, but my post was before that).

I stated mid on the above 3, they were all good last season (so could have been classed as upper mid really), but all 3 have been dissappointing this season.

Never said all signings work out, you'd be bonkers for thinking that. I just wish we moved with the times, instead of getting left behind when it comes to signing players.
A lot of our signings end up being panic buys, that nobody else really wants.

I'm thinking of the long term future of the club. Mediocore signings and a pre-historic infrastructure behind the scenes are going to hold the club back and stop us progressing.

Oh, and I'd rather not have Phil Parkinsonosaurus anywhere near the club I support thank you.

Agreed, and Parkinson is a nasty nasty piece of work. I know that on good authority!

 

[Old Programme seller]

Agreed, and Parkinson is a nasty nasty piece of work. I know that on good authority!

He was a nasty player quite a thug more than a player

 

[Nick Jansky]

I'm thinking this about Keith Andrews, be interesting next season how they do especially if tiago gets solf

When you look at who they sold from last season’s squad I think they’ll be just fine, as they have been this season. They’re a selling club, that’s part of their thing, but their recruitment is absolutely exceptional.

 

[pollster]

May 2024, recruitment 'reshuffle'.

Our recruitment hasn't been great for quite some time, however I believe recently, since Hoyland and Allen joined their mate Wilder, it couldn't have gone much worse.

Incomings since they arrived:
Rated them Bad/Mid/Good. Obviously my opinion, yours may differ, but can't see them being far off.

Permanent 24/25
Jamie Shackleton - Bad
Sam McCallum - Mid (would have been bad, but picked up this season.
Kieffer Moore - Bad (maybe tad hard, but was never a good fit)
Callum O'Hare - Good
Harrison Burrows - Mid (opposite to McCallum)
Tyrese Campbell - Mid (same as above)
Michael Cooper - Mid (same as above)
Tom Cannon - Bad
Jefferson Cáceres - Bad
Christian Nwachukwu - Bad

Loans 24/25
Harry Souttar - Good
Alfie Gilchrist - Bad
Jesurun Rak-Sakyi - Good
Ben Brereton Diaz - Bad
Hamza Choudhury - Mid
Harry Clarke - Bad
Rob Holding - Bad (hadn't played first team football for two years, hardly featured)

Permanent 25/26
Ehije Ukaki - Bad
Mihail Polendakov- Bad
Nils Zätterström - Bad
Danny Ings - Bad
Japhet Tanganga - Mid
Tahith Chong - Bad
Alex Matos - Bad
Mark McGuinness - Bad
Ben Mee - Bad/Mid
Jaïro Riedewald - Good
Patrick Bamford - Good

Loans 25/26
Tyler Bindon - Mid (generous)
Louie Barry - Bad
Djibril Soumaré - Mid (again generous)
Ben Godfrey - Bad
Chiedozie Ogbene - Bad
Ki-Jana Hoever - (too early to judge, not looking great)

So out of 33 incomings, I'd say:
5 have been good.
9 have been mid.
19 have been bad.

The thing is, the 'good' signings, 3 have been free transfers, 2 loans.
Every player we have spent a fee on, has been a bad signing (in my opinion).

Some of the signings are absolutely bewildering.
'Bad' is far too kind.

Every serious football fan in the land could have told you, before they signed with us:
Shackleton is shit/lightweight.
McGuiness is a terrible footballer and slow.
Ings' legs have gone.
Ogbene had lost his pace after a serious injury.
Ben Godfrey was finished.
Chong - see Shackleton.
Matos - nowhere near championship standard.
Cannon - Awful all round game, no stand out attributes.

How much 'scouting' did these players actually require?

We needed a massive change of direction in the summer, from the bottom to the top.
Just changing the front man and expecting things to change was absolutely fucking stupid.

Wilder's roots are entwined so deep in this club, it's going one way. Buckle in, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Your impression is correct but your analysis on individuals is flawed
Hence your conclusion is flawed.

The problem is the imbecile Wilder is in TOTAL control of EVERYTHING football wise at sufc
Hence the constant stream of Journeymen players since he returned again with no controls on him
as Saudi49er imposed - if too late.
As happened at his entry to the club with the exit of players like DCL, Ramsbottom, Adams, RND (out on loan and in the international squad whilst Wilder had never played him and let his contract enter the last season) Whiteman (loan then peanuts sale)

Look at the difference between their big signings when he was promoted cf Hecky
Freeman Robinson/Burke Mousset McDonkey (Berge) then Brewster
The only two decent ones Robinson (good lad I would have kept but couldn't score) BOMBED OUT
and top signing Berge put in too early and weakened the team at the time and the club by pissing off Lundstrum
Whereas Hecky spent less on his only significant signings
Anel - to get promotion
Souza and Hamer - ALL of Wilders best players last season despite one played totally incorrectly
And no way was Trusty a failure as Wilders signings proved over the period and recouped his value to go to a bigger club than United and still a team fixture.

WILDER is the common feature of SUFC's reckless failed spending.
NOT the backroom staff or even Bettis who has overseen all his disasters.

And look at our two disastrous big signings since his return and the new owners wasted money.
Cannon BALLS and Captain Clown or is it Calamity
BOTH WEAKEN THE TEAM.
Useless

 

[David Wheatley]

Spot on it's all too cosy and pally pally at Bramall Lane, and the close relationship between bettis and wilder is sickly !

Knill is also so cosy cosy with Wilder - he is a problem and we need a new younger coach