Director of Football and Head Coach

[Clarke One Nil]

I’ve been thinking about the roles of director of football and head coach, not about the merits of Orta or Heckingbottom personally in those roles.

I have been supportive of the idea of a director of football, simply because of the complexity and scale of running a modern football club compared to decades ago.

But I think I am changing my mind.

I think the attraction is that the head coach is seen as the equivalent of the old manager, with the director of football seen as assisting him.

But in reality the director of football can be closer to being the equivalent of an old-style manager, but one who is very hands-off on the day-to-day management of the squad.

So there is no coordinated vision or direction, and nobody to whom the players know that they are ultimately accountable.

I understand why an owner would not want to put a (possibly temporary) employee, whose main expertise is in football, in charge of a multi-million budget.

But the way the roles are divided up at the moment, certainly at Leeds, seems not be be working.

[Deleted User 1076]

I've never liked the DoF model. I think it works ok if you are a Madrid or Barca where you can uy the best available, but at lower levels?

I can't see how the person running the first team can benefit from not being the person deciding on the playing staff.

[Deleted User 728]

I've never liked the DoF model. I think it works ok if you are a Madrid or Barca where you can uy the best available, but at lower levels?

I can't see how the person running the first team can benefit from not being the person deciding on the playing staff.

This.

Apart from the fact it's never been successful in England, the scale of the economics don't make it feasible to have two heads on the same dog ...

[SiMamu]

With the Director of Football and Head Coach model, I think it can work given the right circumstances. If the head coach is more of a tactician, knowing what system(s) he wants to play and what kind of players he needs, whilst outsourcing find the right players within a budget to the director of football then I think it can work. The head coach's player knowledge may not be at the same level as the director of football's, so he could tell the DoF what kind of player he wants and ask the DoF to find as such. If however, the coach has a specific player in mind, then they should be brought in, of course. By outsourcing the finding of players, negotiating, etc. to the DoF, the head coach can devote more time to training and coaching, as well as drawing up game plans. However, perhaps the DoF role I'm describing is more that of a chief scout.

[SG90]

It would be good to know what the club's actual philosophy is. For me, the dof style we adopted was continental, so therefore we needed continental players and a coach. Obviously AR only gave it 30 games before deciding it was a failure, despite it not being that bad. What are the club planning to do next? If they get rid of Orta and want PH type players, then we'll probably lose the likes of Saiz, as they wouldn't work with that set up. But then the u23s coaching and signing players from Barca, Real Madrid, Ajax then becomes redundant. Imo we should stick with the DOF, but we need a continental approach, but we have to give it time not 30 games or panic if we lose a couple.

[Clarke One Nil]

By outsourcing the finding of players, negotiating, etc. to the DoF, the head coach can devote more time to training and coaching, as well as drawing up game plans. However, perhaps the DoF role I'm describing is more that of a chief scout.

I agree with this. I think the division of expertise and workload is a good idea, but the important question is who is ultimately in charge.

At the moment it seems that the director of football is in charge, although it is the head coach who is paraded publicly as the equivalent of what used to be the manager.

The head coach can in principle veto a suggested player, but in practice that might mean having one less option in the squad rather than getting a player that he actually wants.

[Jacko]

The DoF role is here to stay in one form or another. Why? Partly because of workload, but also because the owner needs somebody between him and the manager who understands the more technical aspects of football and who has a good grasp of the commercial side. The DoF works between the two (owner/chair and manager), blending the football performance and the money making side, as well as taking on other major responsibilities, like player recruitment. I don’t think Radrizzani would have the skills to do player recruitment and it would be a massive distraction for the manager.
At least that’s the theory. This model, or something like it, exists in lots of industries.

[Deleted User 2066]

The DOF football can work with the correct people working together. I am still not convinced this is the best way for Leeds United. The current
set up gives the DOF to choose players that he deems correct for the club, while the manager has to organise and get the best out of these players.
Orta and Heckingbottom has failed miserably in there roles, the record of wins to loses speaks for itself. When you meet other teams with weaker
sides but lose, anyone with half brain can figure out whats happening. I suggest we change their tiltes to Director of Cheap Players and Clueless Coach

[BrighouseWhite]

Read somewhere (possibly Facebook), someone called Orta Director of Disaster. That about sums it up for me.

[Palpatan]

Surely what we need is an amazing Chief Scout who can find us three or four unpolished gems each season for next to nothing. Then our manager tells AR to buy 2 quality first team players he actually wants for real money.