Luzon: I never had final say on transfers

AFKABartram

Guy Luzon has revealed he never had the final say on transfers at Charlton.

The former Addicks boss, who was sacked last October, says "the network scout" was behind the signings.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/sport/charlton/14379470.Former_Charlton_Athletic_boss_reveals_he_never_had_final_say_on_transfers/

newyorkaddick

Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?

Henry Irving

Just a bitter ex-employee so we can stick our fingers in our ears say "la la la la la" loudly and pretend we didn't hear this.

Move on.

C_Jensens_Love_Child

Colin could have told us all that from the Times he bumped into him in London.

ValleyGary

Henry Irving said:

Just a bitter ex-employee so we can stick our fingers in our ears say "la la la la la" loudly and pretend we didn't hear this.

Move on.

Nobody says this anymore, they haven't for ages, you don't have to do it on every thread.

cafcfan

newyorkaddick said:

Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?

I'd suggest that a decent manager would have a better chance of staying in tenure for a bit longer if he got to choose which players he wanted.

Mendonca In Asdas

Sweet dreams aren't made of this.

Chunes

So that's Powell and Luzon saying it's true and KM and RD saying it's not.

But who to believe? Who to believe...

PragueAddick

"The Network Scout".....One person? I thought there was a network of scouts.
Do we have a name for this all-powerful and much travelled individual with such great knowledge of the need of five clubs in five different leagues?

cafcnick1992

newyorkaddick said:

Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?

What?!?! Because the manager manages players he bought. He lives and dies by the players he brings to the club.

The manager not having control of signings undermines his authority

Chunes

PragueAddick said:

"The Network Scout".....One person? I thought there was a network of scouts.
Do we have a name for this all-powerful and much travelled individual with such great knowledge of the need of five clubs in five different leagues?

Andrew Mills

addick1965

PragueAddick said:

"The Network Scout".....One person? I thought there was a network of scouts.
Do we have a name for this all-powerful and much travelled individual with such great knowledge of the need of five clubs in five different leagues?

It's some work experience kid,using FIFA16,PES & YouTube

Chunes

Stevie Wonder

Weegie Addick

It's Karel, innit?

seth plum

Despite him being nutty I have heard from a good source previously that the staff really liked working with Luzon, but he was as bewildered as everybody else.
I went from severe antipathy towards him to liking him personally when I met him. Not sure if he was any good as a manager though, but can anybody be here?
I reckon Riga is as under the thumb as all the others, the recent Lookman shenanigans indicate that.

Stig

shirty5

.

Addickted

Duchatalot's network of Scouts meet him on his arrival at The Valley.

Stig

Addickted

BTW, who's Jake Bacon? He looks about 12.

newyorkaddick

cafcnick1992 said:

newyorkaddick said:

Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?

What?!?! Because the manager manages players he bought. He lives and dies by the players he brings to the club.

The manager not having control of signings undermines his authority

The club's interests and the manager's interests are not aligned - the former is perpetual (in most cases) and the latter has an average career of just a few years.

Managers will always bang the table asking for signings with a near term impact rather than consider the longer term implications for the club.

The concept here is not flawed only the execution.

ValleyGary

Luzon wasn't manager, he was head coach.

tricky

This kind of thing can only work if you have a Director of Football or a Technical Director, or whatever you want to call it.

A constant presence above the manager who remains in place regardless of short term results, aligns the playing side of the club the whole way through it including academy the academy, and has a long term vision to work towards. Think Les Reed at Southampton. Ideally this person would also be heavily involved in management and coaching staff recruitment.

But RD will never cede control to someone who might tell him what he's doing is wrong, or won't work, or tells him he needs to spend more money, so we're left with some faceless Belgian laptop scouter who clearly has no idea of the nuances of different leagues having the final say and a Head Coach who reports into Katrien.

PragueAddick

newyorkaddick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

newyorkaddick said:

Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?

What?!?! Because the manager manages players he bought. He lives and dies by the players he brings to the club.

The manager not having control of signings undermines his authority

The club's interests and the manager's interests are not aligned - the former is perpetual (in most cases) and the latter has an average career of just a few years.

Managers will always bang the table asking for signings with a near term impact rather than consider the longer term implications for the club.

The concept here is not flawed only the execution.

I don't agree with you. I agree that Harry Redknapp is the living breathing example of what can go wrong with the English system. So the continental system has a Head Coach and a Director of Football, which prevents that abuse of power. But we don't have the latter. No one therefore explains to the Network Coach the particularities of our club and our league. This 'system' bestows ridiculous power and responsibility on one man. And probably, it was as @Weegie Addick suggests, Fraeye.

I strongly suspect that it is not how it works in Watford's network.

The_President

Wouldn't expect Luzon to have final say on transfers, else we would have a team with Messi,Ronaldo,Lewandowski and half the Barcelona team.

NornIrishAddick

You'll probably find that the plan is, instead of having individual Directors of Football at each of club, the network will have just one, sadly Dohland himself....

After all, he is a visionary, and how much work can it really be?

Garrymanilow

newyorkaddick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

newyorkaddick said:

Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?

What?!?! Because the manager manages players he bought. He lives and dies by the players he brings to the club.

The manager not having control of signings undermines his authority

The club's interests and the manager's interests are not aligned - the former is perpetual (in most cases) and the latter has an average career of just a few years.

Managers will always bang the table asking for signings with a near term impact rather than consider the longer term implications for the club.

The concept here is not flawed only the execution.

Except you're not asking why the manager has a tenure of a few years. It's because of short-term planning from the club, which is exactly the reason you give for managers not being allowed to sign players. It's nonsense though. Managers are hired because of the plan they have said they will implement. They're also usually signed because they're replacing a manager who hasn't worked out. You don't sign a manager with the intention of sacking him within a short time so it's ridiculous to bring someone in and then hamstring him by foisting players on him that he doesn't want. You're just perpetuating the cycle of short-term appointments and clubs failing.

There are so few teams in English football who do well by refusing to give the manager the last say of signings. Brendan Rodgers for all his faults had Suarez sold and then saw him replaced by millions of pounds of dross. The same for Villas-Boas at Spurs when Bale was sold. Conversely, managers like Ferguson and Wenger have always been given latitude on their signings and you can't say they haven't planned for the future. Two other managers who always demand the final say on signings are Sam Allardyce and Tony Pulis, and their claim to fame is that they've never been relegated. The reason? They know what they want to do with the club and they sign the right player to achieve their aims. Sunderland have improved a lot since they brought in Kirchoff, Kone and Khazri.

Some teams like Swansea and Southampton work with a system where the manager isn't so directly involved, but they have a tactic and require a certain profile of player in each position, and then make a list of possible candidates for the role which they regularly update. The same goes for the manager, and he is brought in to specifically fit this plan, so he's aware of it when he signs up. And even then the manager still gets the sign-off, and gets to recommend players - Jordy Clasie at Southampton as an example. Our whole concept of having some idiot wandering round and recommending seemingly random footballers that the manager has no say in is absolutely nuts - and it's being borne out with our place in the table. 'The club's interests and the manager's interests are not aligned'. I mean, honestly..

ForeverAddickted

When I posted the Jody Brown / Welling piece the other day... Someone said that they would love a past Manager to come out and talk.

Sounds like they were listening.

Algarveaddick

ValleyGary said:

Henry Irving said:

Just a bitter ex-employee so we can stick our fingers in our ears say "la la la la la" loudly and pretend we didn't hear this.

Move on.

Nobody says this anymore, they haven't for ages, you don't have to do it on every thread.

I think it's worth reminding those who were so vociferous about it so often, most of whom have never held their hands up and admitted that they were wrong...

cafcnick1992

How can it be that we have Sunday league men like Karel Fraeye scouting for an ex-premier league side. Barry the plumber could pull off some shit rabona and Fraeye would think he's good enough for England, such is his pedigree in the game.

Bournemouth Addick

PragueAddick said:

newyorkaddick said:

cafcnick1992 said:

newyorkaddick said:

Why should any manager have the final say (given average managerial tenure is about one third of the average contract length of new signings)?

What?!?! Because the manager manages players he bought. He lives and dies by the players he brings to the club.

The manager not having control of signings undermines his authority

The club's interests and the manager's interests are not aligned - the former is perpetual (in most cases) and the latter has an average career of just a few years.

Managers will always bang the table asking for signings with a near term impact rather than consider the longer term implications for the club.

The concept here is not flawed only the execution.

I don't agree with you. I agree that Harry Redknapp is the living breathing example of what can go wrong with the English system. So the continental system has a Head Coach and a Director of Football, which prevents that abuse of power. But we don't have the latter. No one therefore explains to the Network Coach the particularities of our club and our league. This 'system' bestows ridiculous power and responsibility on one man. And probably, it was as @Weegie Addick suggests, Fraeye.

I strongly suspect that it is not how it works in Watford's network.

Yep. That's how I see it being workable too. I long ago accepted that we would not see another manager at Charlton under RD and was initially prepared to give it, and the whole network thing ago. But instead we've had a succession of inadequate coaches, picking from a squad of inadequate players dropped into the club by an inadequate scouting system (aka KF), overseen by an inadequate Chief Exec.

And no one with an ounce of knowledge or experience of the Championship, or the contacts that come with the years, has had any input or been in a position to point out to Roland that he has put in place a system that is guaranteed to fail unless he gets very, very lucky.

There's a man around currently kicking his heels that would have solved this problem overnight and would also have instantly brought the fans back onside but sadly RD and KM knew better.

And no, I don't mean Dowie...