There’s nothing unusual about this structure – it’s common across professional sport.
The issue is presumably in level of decision-making control, and I can understand managers being disgruntled if they’re told Thelwell will have final say — especially when you consider where he has spent the £ in this window.
TenLag on
Is this not how a DoF is supposed to be? Like, Gerrard worked under this model with Mark Allen, Ross Wilson & then again at Villa did he not? As for Muscat, who knows how the Chinese league works with this model but I can imagine it’s probably something similar.
davidg777 on
We need to remember that the ownership comes from the background of American sports.
The 49ers have a Head Coach and a General Manager who are seen as equals (Kyle Shanahan & John Lynch). The GM is responsible for recruitment. In a functioning team they work together on the roster but the GM has the final say unless an owner intervenes.
It’s actually worse in some teams where the GM is senior to the Head Coach.
It might not be part of the football culture here, but that will be the structure with this ownership.
One window of Thellwell is enough for me as I’m sure it is for most of us, but when he is replaced the structure will remain, and we need to get used to that.
Scary-Zucchini-1750 on
Just me or does that not look that bad?
Sounds about right in my opinion. If anything, looks like the “Head Coach” has a bit more power than I’d expect.
dabassmonsta on
Probably not a popular response, but I can understand that and see how that would make sense. In theory, it should be a reasonable model to follow. I’ve dealt with a lot of corporate crap through the years.
However, that doesn’t mean Thelwell is doing a good job. That just points to the fact that he can talk a good game. Someone else probably came up with that.
Let’s be honest, would we want our manager/head-coach/gaffer being the main point of contact for sports science and medical services? Also, with talent & recruitment, we don’t need the gaffer to be identifying players. He can say “get me a solid left back” and then the scouting team find the gems and the Sporting Director should, I say should, be the one looking at potential deals when the gaffer gives the thumbs up about the player.
Again, the plan looks OK, but it’s being badly implemented.
CrunchbiteJr on
It’s fine with the right people and responsibilities across roles. But a good structure can be ruined by bad people and bad processes.
ImpactAffectionate86 on
Does it say ‘and his son’ in really small letters under sporting director?
rueval on
Seems pretty normal. What’s the issue?
Pretend_Office_6101 on
I see no problems with that structure. 1st team coach has a hand in everything relating to the team. The key factor is how the 2 people work together.
ScottishExile on
This is how all clubs with a DoF operating model work. In theory, it frees up the manager to spend more time with the team and allows the club to keep consistency in recruitment and style without having to start again every time a manager leaves.
In practice, it requires a strong working relationship between the DoF and manager and both to be at the absolute top of their game. This certainly wasn’t the case with Martin and it doesn’t seem to be the case with Thelwell either. Both appear to be examples of people who talk a good game but can’t put their strategies into practice.
DisasterouslyInept on
Don’t really see an issue here? The sporting director and head coach seem to work together, that’s what is supposed to happen?
11 Comments
There’s nothing unusual about this structure – it’s common across professional sport.
The issue is presumably in level of decision-making control, and I can understand managers being disgruntled if they’re told Thelwell will have final say — especially when you consider where he has spent the £ in this window.
Is this not how a DoF is supposed to be? Like, Gerrard worked under this model with Mark Allen, Ross Wilson & then again at Villa did he not? As for Muscat, who knows how the Chinese league works with this model but I can imagine it’s probably something similar.
We need to remember that the ownership comes from the background of American sports.
The 49ers have a Head Coach and a General Manager who are seen as equals (Kyle Shanahan & John Lynch). The GM is responsible for recruitment. In a functioning team they work together on the roster but the GM has the final say unless an owner intervenes.
It’s actually worse in some teams where the GM is senior to the Head Coach.
It might not be part of the football culture here, but that will be the structure with this ownership.
One window of Thellwell is enough for me as I’m sure it is for most of us, but when he is replaced the structure will remain, and we need to get used to that.
Just me or does that not look that bad?
Sounds about right in my opinion. If anything, looks like the “Head Coach” has a bit more power than I’d expect.
Probably not a popular response, but I can understand that and see how that would make sense. In theory, it should be a reasonable model to follow. I’ve dealt with a lot of corporate crap through the years.
However, that doesn’t mean Thelwell is doing a good job. That just points to the fact that he can talk a good game. Someone else probably came up with that.
Let’s be honest, would we want our manager/head-coach/gaffer being the main point of contact for sports science and medical services? Also, with talent & recruitment, we don’t need the gaffer to be identifying players. He can say “get me a solid left back” and then the scouting team find the gems and the Sporting Director should, I say should, be the one looking at potential deals when the gaffer gives the thumbs up about the player.
Again, the plan looks OK, but it’s being badly implemented.
It’s fine with the right people and responsibilities across roles. But a good structure can be ruined by bad people and bad processes.
Does it say ‘and his son’ in really small letters under sporting director?
Seems pretty normal. What’s the issue?
I see no problems with that structure. 1st team coach has a hand in everything relating to the team. The key factor is how the 2 people work together.
This is how all clubs with a DoF operating model work. In theory, it frees up the manager to spend more time with the team and allows the club to keep consistency in recruitment and style without having to start again every time a manager leaves.
In practice, it requires a strong working relationship between the DoF and manager and both to be at the absolute top of their game. This certainly wasn’t the case with Martin and it doesn’t seem to be the case with Thelwell either. Both appear to be examples of people who talk a good game but can’t put their strategies into practice.
Don’t really see an issue here? The sporting director and head coach seem to work together, that’s what is supposed to happen?