@Grapevine49. Good Summary. In my experience, the Manager sets the agenda for player recruitment. The Chief Scout delivers on the managers policy. The Chief Scout provides scouting reports on teams and players as requested by the manager.
I worked for a few Chief Scouts, some good, some indifferent. Chris Gieler at QPR, Ron Howard at Luton and Ron Suart at Wimbledon were all good. All deferred to the managers they were working for, because the manager set the agenda for the first team and knew what type of player he needed to fit his team structure & style of play. That's how you construct a team.
When you have an ownership whose first priority is to keep to budget by signing players themselves and handing them to a Head Coach, for him then to construct a team, he's got no chance. Didn't we have 3 left backs on the pitch in one game last season?
You don't have a manager and you personally have as much to contribute to "pulling together a squad" as you do to driving the Eurostar, you ridiculous woman.
Are you suggesting the club should do absolutely nothing on this until the manager is confirmed then?
There are other coaches in the club who may have / are providing input into possible targets and likewise Riga may have identified candidates to consider before he left. Preparation doesn't have to stop. What mustn't happen Is that the new manager has no ability to influence when they are eventually appointed. Given any new recruits to date that seems unlikely.
Tony Pulis quit Palace on the eve of a new season by comparison ie nothing is certain and a club must be bigger than the individual employees.
It's got to be a step in the right direction and preferable to a continuing void.
We just aren't a club that's going to appoint a manager who comes with his own team of supporting personnel.
After all, the job ad was quite clear. The chief scout is to report directly to Meire.
It's a moot point, but I wouldn't agree with that. It says -
"To liaise with the Head Coach, Scouting Network and CEO with regards to the identification and signing of talented players;
Ensure contact networks are built, extended and serviced regularly in conjunction with the Head Coach and CEO."
It's not unreasonable to liase with the CEO, after all she has to be involved.
The issue is who will be making the player signing decisions. IMO it should be the Head Coach, with the CEO having the final say. Let's be honest you can't have a Head Coach having complete autonomy Harry Redknapp style.
I am not for one moment condoning the previous nonsense, where the coach & Chapple's views were largely ignored.
CEO's or directors should only interfere with transfers for three reasons IMHO
1. The budget for this season or future season (due to wages etc) is being breached or a sale is needed to balance the books
2. If the squad is unbalanced eg 7 keepers and 1 centre half.
3. If the player is likely to bring the club into disrepute eg Ched Evens
Otherwise CEOs and directors should let the staff they have appointed including the manager, scout, DOF, Academy manager do their job within the direction set by the board. Those football staff will quickly take the blame if it goes wrong and will be sacked.
The CEO/Directors should have a clear vision going forward be that the Crewe develop and sell method or the Swansea model of having a squad that plays in a certain style and finding players and coaches that fit into that model.
You involve the scout and academy manager so it's not just the manager's view although he should have the last word. The academy manager also makes sure you consider the talent coming thru'. At Charlton that would be saying "we have a good keeperin the U21s so do we need to buy another?".
Personally I think the CEO or finance director should be part of that transfer committee to oversee it, check the budget and ask questions but the head coach/manager makes the final decision.
Or you can use the Roland model of "they're cheap and Karel and his laptop mates say we can sell them at a profit, by the way we have these players that failed at our other clubs, which were also recommended by my laptop scouts, so we're giving them to you whether you want them or not"
"Karel and his laptop mates" Keep repeating the same old crap..... It should be laptop man by the way and, as been explained before but not to your high standards of proof, KF was never involved in recruitment to Charlton just Alcorcon. Otherwise good post!
You don't have a manager and you personally have as much to contribute to "pulling together a squad" as you do to driving the Eurostar, you ridiculous woman.
Are you suggesting the club should do absolutely nothing on this until the manager is confirmed then?
There are other coaches in the club who may have / are providing input into possible targets and likewise Riga may have identified candidates to consider before he left. Preparation doesn't have to stop. What mustn't happen Is that the new manager has no ability to influence when they are eventually appointed. Given any new recruits to date that seems unlikely.
Tony Pulis quit Palace on the eve of a new season by comparison ie nothing is certain and a club must be bigger than the individual employees.
It's got to be a step in the right direction and preferable to a continuing void.
We just aren't a club that's going to appoint a manager who comes with his own team of supporting personnel.
After all, the job ad was quite clear. The chief scout is to report directly to Meire.
It's a moot point, but I wouldn't agree with that. It says -
"To liaise with the Head Coach, Scouting Network and CEO with regards to the identification and signing of talented players;
Ensure contact networks are built, extended and serviced regularly in conjunction with the Head Coach and CEO."
It's not unreasonable to liase with the CEO, after all she has to be involved.
The issue is who will be making the player signing decisions. IMO it should be the Head Coach, with the CEO having the final say. Let's be honest you can't have a Head Coach having complete autonomy Harry Redknapp style.
I am not for one moment condoning the previous nonsense, where the coach & Chapple's views were largely ignored.
I'm not sure if you missed or are disregarding the bit at the top?
It couldn't really be clearer that the post reports to Meire.
I would doubt that the assistant head coach, first-team coach, etc, report to the chief exec, even in the mad world of Charlton. It is very clear from this document that the chief scout does.
I accept it's possible that they have changed the spec since advertising it and don't have to appoint to the spec, but there isn't any ambiguity in what they published.
Many job descriptions at Charlton will talk about the need to "collaborate" and "liaise" with other posts, but the reporting line is what matters.
Apologies Airman, I missed it, even though I thought I'd checked 3 times.
I agree with Henry. When I said the CEO needs to be liased with, what I meant was that she does the negotiations and therefore she has to be kept up to speed. Otherwise she could be in Dubai when we've just lined up Messi.
The CEO wouldn't know who the players are that are being recommended. That's probably when the Laptop numpties are consulted, check out the player recommended, then come up with a cheaper version from the Belgian Second Division, based on stats, without knowing whether the player they identify is physically or mentally strong enough to play in the English League. GUess-work, without actually scouting the player. Thats when the Chief Scout should look at the Laptop suggestion and make a considered assessment. Based on previous signings, the likes of Reza & Bergdich have been signed with no evaluation on whether they are capable of playing in the physical English League. Phil Chapple may have been doing that job at the start , assessed that certain players were unsuitable, but they signed them anyway, because Carol & the Laptop numpties decided otherwise and the Belgian vote won over the CEO. That would have prompted Chapple to move on.
Perhaps they have finally recognised their mistake and the new Chief Scout will be listened to? It's then a question of whether he is up to it. If he doesn't get it right, or the Laptop numpties still have the power, it's League 2 here we come.
Apologies Airman, I missed it, even though I thought I'd checked 3 times.
I agree with Henry. When I said the CEO needs to be liased with, what I meant was that she does the negotiations and therefore she has to be kept up to speed. Otherwise she could be in Dubai when we've just lined up Messi.
That is why the CEO needs to be involved. IF Messi is available how much can we afford? How important is he to the team plan? Do we have other players (Sordell, Church) on our wants lists who could do a job if the Messi deal doesn't come off.
Hopefully the scout and manager are saying "This player is worth £250k and £7k per week but no more but he's young so get him on a three year deal if you can". That gives the CEO a guide as to what to pay and what type of deal. Of course, that will move but that is about negotiation.
It is entirely acceptable and normal in football, from an organisation chart perspective, for the First Team Manager/Coach, Head of Recruitment and Head of Academy to all report to the CEO. It's one of the CEO's primary tasks to pull all of those three strands together and ensure they are working effectively together - along with finance, operations and marketing.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
Katrien Meire admitted at the Fans Forum meeting that 'you never know what you're going to get when you sign a player' which shows a fundamental failure to grasp the basic concepts of scouting and the whole point of it. You should know exactly what you're getting if you've done the job right.
There is no need for the scout to report to the CEO, he should be under the manager/head coach. It just smells of Katrien Meire wanting to have control of things, even though she doesn't have the first clue about them nor the inclination to put any actual work into running them properly. She is 'in charge', that's all that matters to her (even though she really isn't, Duchatelet will over-rule her at any time on any matter).
One thing I'm pretty sure Katrien said when the subject of injuries to players came up was that in future one figure to be regarded was if they had played 30 games the previous season. I wish I could remember her exact words, but I am sure I thought at the time she was talking about an extra feature to put into the stats player search engine or whatever it is they use. Phil Chapple wasn't around to help in January, so what method were they using to get Vaz Te and the like if it wasn't pouring over the stats? The regime may have a point that to run a football club you need to be able to count (which they can't do anyway), but the numbers need to be finessed with a bit of organic savvy too. The regime really don't know that mixed up in this business is the human element, and the element of chance, and the need for contingency. They also don't have a clue about ordering priorities, either with their business decisions, or in the human resource structure within the club. It is like Katrien simply asks Siri to solve every problem, whilst Roland asks (a borrowed) calculator.
You don't have a manager and you personally have as much to contribute to "pulling together a squad" as you do to driving the Eurostar, you ridiculous woman.
Are you suggesting the club should do absolutely nothing on this until the manager is confirmed then?
There are other coaches in the club who may have / are providing input into possible targets and likewise Riga may have identified candidates to consider before he left. Preparation doesn't have to stop. What mustn't happen Is that the new manager has no ability to influence when they are eventually appointed. Given any new recruits to date that seems unlikely.
Tony Pulis quit Palace on the eve of a new season by comparison ie nothing is certain and a club must be bigger than the individual employees.
It's got to be a step in the right direction and preferable to a continuing void.
We just aren't a club that's going to appoint a manager who comes with his own team of supporting personnel.
After all, the job ad was quite clear. The chief scout is to report directly to Meire.
It's a moot point, but I wouldn't agree with that. It says -
"To liaise with the Head Coach, Scouting Network and CEO with regards to the identification and signing of talented players;
Ensure contact networks are built, extended and serviced regularly in conjunction with the Head Coach and CEO."
It's not unreasonable to liase with the CEO, after all she has to be involved.
The issue is who will be making the player signing decisions. IMO it should be the Head Coach, with the CEO having the final say. Let's be honest you can't have a Head Coach having complete autonomy Harry Redknapp style.
I am not for one moment condoning the previous nonsense, where the coach & Chapple's views were largely ignored.
I'm not sure if you missed or are disregarding the bit at the top?
It couldn't really be clearer that the post reports to Meire.
I would doubt that the assistant head coach, first-team coach, etc, report to the chief exec, even in the mad world of Charlton. It is very clear from this document that the chief scout does.
I accept it's possible that they have changed the spec since advertising it and don't have to appoint to the spec, but there isn't any ambiguity in what they published.
Many job descriptions at Charlton will talk about the need to "collaborate" and "liaise" with other posts, but the reporting line is what matters.
That's shocking if true - how can she know anything about what makes a good player and be qualified to make a final judgment
"Karel and his laptop mates" Keep repeating the same old crap..... It should be laptop man by the way and, as been explained before but not to your high standards of proof, KF was never involved in recruitment to Charlton just Alcorcon. Otherwise good post!
Do you honestly think that refusing to accept no evidence whatsoever is a high burden of proof?
"Karel and his laptop mates" Keep repeating the same old crap..... It should be laptop man by the way and, as been explained before but not to your high standards of proof, KF was never involved in recruitment to Charlton just Alcorcon. Otherwise good post!
Do you honestly think that refusing to accept no evidence whatsoever is a high burden of proof?
Depends what you mean be evidence I think. Henry relies on supposition and random hearsay regarding recruitment whereas I take more notice of what the person accused says and a fair examination of the time lines involved. Ultimately it does not matter now but it irritates me that this misconception persists and is drip fed almost in perpetuity by some who should know better and are generally respected.
Matthew Pennycook, the MP who we forced to go and meet with her, said after speaking to her it was quite obvious she played a prominent role in choosing players.
Yes, her. A junior lawyer. Choosing footballers.
I would like to point out we had Phil Chapple at the time.
Did we not also have senior footballers at the player of the year dinner expressing their frustration at being asked for advice and then having their suggestions be completely ignored.
Anyone thinking this is the regime changing, as Outkast once sung, I would suggest those roses really smell like poo.
"Karel and his laptop mates" Keep repeating the same old crap..... It should be laptop man by the way and, as been explained before but not to your high standards of proof, KF was never involved in recruitment to Charlton just Alcorcon. Otherwise good post!
Do you honestly think that refusing to accept no evidence whatsoever is a high burden of proof?
Depends what you mean be evidence I think. Henry relies on supposition and random hearsay regarding recruitment whereas I take more notice of what the person accused says and a fair examination of the time lines involved. Ultimately it does not matter now but it irritates me that this misconception persists and is drip fed almost in perpetuity by some who should know better and are generally respected.
You'd make a poor law judge my friend.
Your defence of KF is alarmingly high, it's not just one person who has this supposition and the posting of hearsay, many a poster's have contacts within the club and have spoken to KF and others themselves - everything contradicts what you seem to think which paints a perfect picture of KF - not involved in anything bad.
I almost preferred it when she was not talking to the media - presume the same people that advised her not to have now, with Google wiped clean, advised her to start doing so again? At least I didn't get even more wound up because of reading the crap that she spouts.
Let's hope he is able to hang around long enough to recruit som decent colleagues and have a manager that he can work with. He strikes me as competent and offers a small glimmer of hope to a wary would be manager.
It is entirely acceptable and normal in football, from an organisation chart perspective, for the First Team Manager/Coach, Head of Recruitment and Head of Academy to all report to the CEO. It's one of the CEO's primary tasks to pull all of those three strands together and ensure they are working effectively together - along with finance, operations and marketing.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
It was a requirement of the academy set up that that structure reported into the chief exec, to keep it away from changes of manager.
However, the first team manager has never reported to the chief exec at Charlton to my knowledge (pre RD). Curbs certainly never reported to Varney (and would not have done so), only to Murray, ditto Dowie, and I would guess Chris Powell also reported to Varney, by then vice chair and not chief exec - certainly that was the key relationship, albeit with Jimenez randomly intervening. Prothero replaced Varney and was not chief executive either.
I don't think Pardew felt he was accountable to anyone, including God.
Notably, this guy is not head of recruitment, he is chief scout. We can debate the distinction, but I doubt if any chief scout at Charlton has reported to the chief exec either, pre RD, although I could be wrong.
It is entirely acceptable and normal in football, from an organisation chart perspective, for the First Team Manager/Coach, Head of Recruitment and Head of Academy to all report to the CEO. It's one of the CEO's primary tasks to pull all of those three strands together and ensure they are working effectively together - along with finance, operations and marketing.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
It was a requirement of the academy set up that that structure reported into the chief exec, to keep it away from changes of manager.
However, the first team manager has never reported to the chief exec at Charlton to my knowledge (pre RD). Curbs certainly never reported to Varney (and would not have done so), only to Murray, ditto Dowie, and I would guess Chris Powell also reported to Varney, by then vice chair and not chief exec - certainly that was the key relationship, albeit with Jimenez randomly intervening. Prothero replaced Varney and was not chief executive either.
I don't think Pardew felt he was accountable to anyone, including God.
Notably, this guy is not head of recruitment, he is chief scout. We can debate the distinction, but I doubt if any chief scout at Charlton has reported to the chief exec either, pre RD, although I could be wrong.
During the brief period of Chappell being Chairman he said at a Bromley meeting in an ideal world he would have the Cheif Scout reporting into the then CEO Steve Waggott. Forunatly this never happened
It is entirely acceptable and normal in football, from an organisation chart perspective, for the First Team Manager/Coach, Head of Recruitment and Head of Academy to all report to the CEO. It's one of the CEO's primary tasks to pull all of those three strands together and ensure they are working effectively together - along with finance, operations and marketing.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
It was a requirement of the academy set up that that structure reported into the chief exec, to keep it away from changes of manager.
However, the first team manager has never reported to the chief exec at Charlton to my knowledge (pre RD). Curbs certainly never reported to Varney (and would not have done so), only to Murray, ditto Dowie, and I would guess Chris Powell also reported to Varney, by then vice chair and not chief exec - certainly that was the key relationship, albeit with Jimenez randomly intervening. Prothero replaced Varney and was not chief executive either.
I don't think Pardew felt he was accountable to anyone, including God.
Notably, this guy is not head of recruitment, he is chief scout. We can debate the distinction, but I doubt if any chief scout at Charlton has reported to the chief exec either, pre RD, although I could be wrong.
During the brief period of Chappell being Chairman he said at a Bromley meeting in an ideal world he would have the Cheif Scout reporting into the then CEO Steve Waggott. Forunatly this never happened
Waggott was a special case ... I haven't forgotten him writing in the programme that he was going to base himself more at the training ground in future. Or words to that effect. In any event, he saw himself as a "football man" more than any other Charlton chief exec.
It is entirely acceptable and normal in football, from an organisation chart perspective, for the First Team Manager/Coach, Head of Recruitment and Head of Academy to all report to the CEO. It's one of the CEO's primary tasks to pull all of those three strands together and ensure they are working effectively together - along with finance, operations and marketing.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
It was a requirement of the academy set up that that structure reported into the chief exec, to keep it away from changes of manager.
However, the first team manager has never reported to the chief exec at Charlton to my knowledge (pre RD). Curbs certainly never reported to Varney (and would not have done so), only to Murray, ditto Dowie, and I would guess Chris Powell also reported to Varney, by then vice chair and not chief exec - certainly that was the key relationship, albeit with Jimenez randomly intervening. Prothero replaced Varney and was not chief executive either.
I don't think Pardew felt he was accountable to anyone, including God.
Notably, this guy is not head of recruitment, he is chief scout. We can debate the distinction, but I doubt if any chief scout at Charlton has reported to the chief exec either, pre RD, although I could be wrong.
But we don't have an executive Chairman to report to.
RD says he leaves the day to day running of Charlton to KM, so they have to report to KM. Who else ?
It is entirely acceptable and normal in football, from an organisation chart perspective, for the First Team Manager/Coach, Head of Recruitment and Head of Academy to all report to the CEO. It's one of the CEO's primary tasks to pull all of those three strands together and ensure they are working effectively together - along with finance, operations and marketing.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
It was a requirement of the academy set up that that structure reported into the chief exec, to keep it away from changes of manager.
However, the first team manager has never reported to the chief exec at Charlton to my knowledge (pre RD). Curbs certainly never reported to Varney (and would not have done so), only to Murray, ditto Dowie, and I would guess Chris Powell also reported to Varney, by then vice chair and not chief exec - certainly that was the key relationship, albeit with Jimenez randomly intervening. Prothero replaced Varney and was not chief executive either.
I don't think Pardew felt he was accountable to anyone, including God.
Notably, this guy is not head of recruitment, he is chief scout. We can debate the distinction, but I doubt if any chief scout at Charlton has reported to the chief exec either, pre RD, although I could be wrong.
But we don't have an executive Chairman to report to.
RD says he leaves the day to day running of Charlton to KM, so they have to report to KM. Who else ?
It's rather my point that the structure and staffing of it is wrong. The chief scout should report to a first-team manager and the manager to someone who is fit for purpose, whether as chief exec or director of football or whatever. Or the scout reports to whoever is the qualified football authority in the structure, like Les Reed at Southampton.
Having the chief scout report to Meire simply implies that she will continue to make the recruitment decisions, which is crazy (even if in practice she is simply a cypher for RD and his geek mates in Belgium, which is surely what this is designed to protect).
"Karel and his laptop mates" Keep repeating the same old crap..... It should be laptop man by the way and, as been explained before but not to your high standards of proof, KF was never involved in recruitment to Charlton just Alcorcon. Otherwise good post!
Do you honestly think that refusing to accept no evidence whatsoever is a high burden of proof?
Depends what you mean be evidence I think. Henry relies on supposition and random hearsay regarding recruitment whereas I take more notice of what the person accused says and a fair examination of the time lines involved. Ultimately it does not matter now but it irritates me that this misconception persists and is drip fed almost in perpetuity by some who should know better and are generally respected.
So, to be clear, your evidence is that the bloke accused of scouting our players said 'no I didn't', and that's it. That's supposition. It seems to me that no-one really knows 100% what our scouting situation was, but we've heard from a few sources that it was Karel, and you've heard from Karel that it wasn't. Even by your own totting up logic your evidence is inferior.
It is entirely acceptable and normal in football, from an organisation chart perspective, for the First Team Manager/Coach, Head of Recruitment and Head of Academy to all report to the CEO. It's one of the CEO's primary tasks to pull all of those three strands together and ensure they are working effectively together - along with finance, operations and marketing.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
It was a requirement of the academy set up that that structure reported into the chief exec, to keep it away from changes of manager.
However, the first team manager has never reported to the chief exec at Charlton to my knowledge (pre RD). Curbs certainly never reported to Varney (and would not have done so), only to Murray, ditto Dowie, and I would guess Chris Powell also reported to Varney, by then vice chair and not chief exec - certainly that was the key relationship, albeit with Jimenez randomly intervening. Prothero replaced Varney and was not chief executive either.
I don't think Pardew felt he was accountable to anyone, including God.
Notably, this guy is not head of recruitment, he is chief scout. We can debate the distinction, but I doubt if any chief scout at Charlton has reported to the chief exec either, pre RD, although I could be wrong.
But we don't have an executive Chairman to report to.
RD says he leaves the day to day running of Charlton to KM, so they have to report to KM. Who else ?
It's rather my point that the structure and staffing of it is wrong. The chief scout should report to a first-team manager and the manager to someone who is fit for purpose, whether as chief exec or director of football or whatever. Or the scout reports to whoever is the qualified football authority in the structure, like Les Reed at Southampton.
Having the chief scout report to Meire simply implies that she will continue to make the recruitment decisions, which is crazy (even if in practice she is simply a cypher for RD and his geek mates in Belgium, which is surely what this is designed to protect).
I don't agree, this is a nothing point. I despise Meire's involvement with Charlton but this is a nothing reporting structure. The CEO runs our club as we have a non-exec chairman and a non-exec benefactor. Everything reports in to her. Hopefully the scout will have a relationship with the still to be assigned manager on structuring his scouting around what the manager wants, but that is slightly seperate to the reporting structure.
She isn't good at her job in most of our opinions and it's alarmingly obvious that giving her a club to run is more important to our financial sponsor that the good of a club, but this is a non-issue
It is entirely acceptable and normal in football, from an organisation chart perspective, for the First Team Manager/Coach, Head of Recruitment and Head of Academy to all report to the CEO. It's one of the CEO's primary tasks to pull all of those three strands together and ensure they are working effectively together - along with finance, operations and marketing.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
It was a requirement of the academy set up that that structure reported into the chief exec, to keep it away from changes of manager.
However, the first team manager has never reported to the chief exec at Charlton to my knowledge (pre RD). Curbs certainly never reported to Varney (and would not have done so), only to Murray, ditto Dowie, and I would guess Chris Powell also reported to Varney, by then vice chair and not chief exec - certainly that was the key relationship, albeit with Jimenez randomly intervening. Prothero replaced Varney and was not chief executive either.
I don't think Pardew felt he was accountable to anyone, including God.
Notably, this guy is not head of recruitment, he is chief scout. We can debate the distinction, but I doubt if any chief scout at Charlton has reported to the chief exec either, pre RD, although I could be wrong.
But we don't have an executive Chairman to report to.
RD says he leaves the day to day running of Charlton to KM, so they have to report to KM. Who else ?
It's rather my point that the structure and staffing of it is wrong. The chief scout should report to a first-team manager and the manager to someone who is fit for purpose, whether as chief exec or director of football or whatever. Or the scout reports to whoever is the qualified football authority in the structure, like Les Reed at Southampton.
Having the chief scout report to Meire simply implies that she will continue to make the recruitment decisions, which is crazy (even if in practice she is simply a cypher for RD and his geek mates in Belgium, which is surely what this is designed to protect).
No it doesn't / need not. It could transpire that way but only time will tell.
You are likely reading too much into a job description. Who of us really works in a way that fully reflects our job description?
The point surely is that the role requires co-operation between all stakeholders; and that will evolve over time and be subject to many influences not least the competence of the individual(s).
Equally I feel comparisons to Curbishley and others aren't fully valid as we no longer have a 'manager' we have a coach i.e. I believe a narrower remit and that which is in line with many other clubs.
The reporting line could be no more than an HR thing i.e. Placing the burden of the line management aspects and administrative things to someone better placed to take that away from an individual who needs to concentrate fully on football matters (and probably isn't keen to worry about line reporting elements beyond quality football conversations).
It's a very literal interpretation being applied in your analysis. Real world is less black and white I feel.
Comments
KM: Well I've got a Breakfast meeting to arrange and I'm not convinced these shoes will go with this dress
SH: Weren't you listening to a word I just said
KM: Sorry go on, I heard you say Centre-Circle, boy I had a great idea for that a few years ago.
SH: I said Centre-Ha!!!!... Oh f**k it, I'm off!!
I worked for a few Chief Scouts, some good, some indifferent. Chris Gieler at QPR, Ron Howard at Luton and Ron Suart at Wimbledon were all good. All deferred to the managers they were working for, because the manager set the agenda for the first team and knew what type of player he needed to fit his team structure & style of play. That's how you construct a team.
When you have an ownership whose first priority is to keep to budget by signing players themselves and handing them to a Head Coach, for him then to construct a team, he's got no chance. Didn't we have 3 left backs on the pitch in one game last season?
"To liaise with the Head Coach, Scouting Network and CEO with regards to the
identification and signing of talented players;
Ensure contact networks are built, extended and serviced regularly in conjunction
with the Head Coach and CEO."
It's not unreasonable to liase with the CEO, after all she has to be involved.
The issue is who will be making the player signing decisions. IMO it should be the Head Coach, with the CEO having the final say. Let's be honest you can't have a Head Coach having complete autonomy Harry Redknapp style.
I am not for one moment condoning the previous nonsense, where the coach & Chapple's views were largely ignored.
1. The budget for this season or future season (due to wages etc) is being breached or a sale is needed to balance the books
2. If the squad is unbalanced eg 7 keepers and 1 centre half.
3. If the player is likely to bring the club into disrepute eg Ched Evens
Otherwise CEOs and directors should let the staff they have appointed including the manager, scout, DOF, Academy manager do their job within the direction set by the board. Those football staff will quickly take the blame if it goes wrong and will be sacked.
The CEO/Directors should have a clear vision going forward be that the Crewe develop and sell method or the Swansea model of having a squad that plays in a certain style and finding players and coaches that fit into that model.
You involve the scout and academy manager so it's not just the manager's view although he should have the last word. The academy manager also makes sure you consider the talent coming thru'. At Charlton that would be saying "we have a good keeperin the U21s so do we need to buy another?".
Personally I think the CEO or finance director should be part of that transfer committee to oversee it, check the budget and ask questions but the head coach/manager makes the final decision.
Or you can use the Roland model of "they're cheap and Karel and his laptop mates say we can sell them at a profit, by the way we have these players that failed at our other clubs, which were also recommended by my laptop scouts, so we're giving them to you whether you want them or not"
It couldn't really be clearer that the post reports to Meire.
I would doubt that the assistant head coach, first-team coach, etc, report to the chief exec, even in the mad world of Charlton. It is very clear from this document that the chief scout does.
I accept it's possible that they have changed the spec since advertising it and don't have to appoint to the spec, but there isn't any ambiguity in what they published.
Many job descriptions at Charlton will talk about the need to "collaborate" and "liaise" with other posts, but the reporting line is what matters.
I agree with Henry. When I said the CEO needs to be liased with, what I meant was that she does the negotiations and therefore she has to be kept up to speed. Otherwise she could be in Dubai when we've just lined up Messi.
Perhaps they have finally recognised their mistake and the new Chief Scout will be listened to? It's then a question of whether he is up to it. If he doesn't get it right, or the Laptop numpties still have the power, it's League 2 here we come.
Hopefully the scout and manager are saying "This player is worth £250k and £7k per week but no more but he's young so get him on a three year deal if you can". That gives the CEO a guide as to what to pay and what type of deal. Of course, that will move but that is about negotiation.
I'm not of course inferring that our CEO is capable of that!
There is no need for the scout to report to the CEO, he should be under the manager/head coach. It just smells of Katrien Meire wanting to have control of things, even though she doesn't have the first clue about them nor the inclination to put any actual work into running them properly. She is 'in charge', that's all that matters to her (even though she really isn't, Duchatelet will over-rule her at any time on any matter).
I wish I could remember her exact words, but I am sure I thought at the time she was talking about an extra feature to put into the stats player search engine or whatever it is they use. Phil Chapple wasn't around to help in January, so what method were they using to get Vaz Te and the like if it wasn't pouring over the stats?
The regime may have a point that to run a football club you need to be able to count (which they can't do anyway), but the numbers need to be finessed with a bit of organic savvy too. The regime really don't know that mixed up in this business is the human element, and the element of chance, and the need for contingency. They also don't have a clue about ordering priorities, either with their business decisions, or in the human resource structure within the club.
It is like Katrien simply asks Siri to solve every problem, whilst Roland asks (a borrowed) calculator.
Ultimately it does not matter now but it irritates me that this misconception persists and is drip fed almost in perpetuity by some who should know better and are generally respected.
Yes, her. A junior lawyer. Choosing footballers.
I would like to point out we had Phil Chapple at the time.
Did we not also have senior footballers at the player of the year dinner expressing their frustration at being asked for advice and then having their suggestions be completely ignored.
Anyone thinking this is the regime changing, as Outkast once sung, I would suggest those roses really smell like poo.
Your defence of KF is alarmingly high, it's not just one person who has this supposition and the posting of hearsay, many a poster's have contacts within the club and have spoken to KF and others themselves - everything contradicts what you seem to think which paints a perfect picture of KF - not involved in anything bad.
However, the first team manager has never reported to the chief exec at Charlton to my knowledge (pre RD). Curbs certainly never reported to Varney (and would not have done so), only to Murray, ditto Dowie, and I would guess Chris Powell also reported to Varney, by then vice chair and not chief exec - certainly that was the key relationship, albeit with Jimenez randomly intervening. Prothero replaced Varney and was not chief executive either.
I don't think Pardew felt he was accountable to anyone, including God.
Notably, this guy is not head of recruitment, he is chief scout. We can debate the distinction, but I doubt if any chief scout at Charlton has reported to the chief exec either, pre RD, although I could be wrong.
RD says he leaves the day to day running of Charlton to KM, so they have to report to KM. Who else ?
Having the chief scout report to Meire simply implies that she will continue to make the recruitment decisions, which is crazy (even if in practice she is simply a cypher for RD and his geek mates in Belgium, which is surely what this is designed to protect).
She isn't good at her job in most of our opinions and it's alarmingly obvious that giving her a club to run is more important to our financial sponsor that the good of a club, but this is a non-issue
You are likely reading too much into a job description. Who of us really works in a way that fully reflects our job description?
The point surely is that the role requires co-operation between all stakeholders; and that will evolve over time and be subject to many influences not least the competence of the individual(s).
Equally I feel comparisons to Curbishley and others aren't fully valid as we no longer have a 'manager' we have a coach i.e. I believe a narrower remit and that which is in line with many other clubs.
The reporting line could be no more than an HR thing i.e. Placing the burden of the line management aspects and administrative things to someone better placed to take that away from an individual who needs to concentrate fully on football matters (and probably isn't keen to worry about line reporting elements beyond quality football conversations).
It's a very literal interpretation being applied in your analysis. Real world is less black and white I feel.