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.
I think she is a very literal person and needs to control ...it would not surprise me if the description is exactly as stated.
RD decides on the budget for CAFC which is the responsibility of the CEO with the assistance of her SMT.
If we had a coach/manager he would specify the type of player he wants to the Chief Scout who then draws up a short list which is discussed with the manager who goes to the CEO to see what the budget will allow and then the manager should negotiate with the player and his agent.
The problem we have is no manager and an inexperienced and stubborn CEO and until she goes we are lost.
@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?
This explains your tactical assessments of the footy (which I love, by the way).
On a side note, are you by any chance looking for work....
When we had three left backs, wasn't it THD, Fox, and Bergdich? Against...Bolton I think, where THD was sent off?
While I take your point, Bergdich wasn't much of a left back, and we had no cover at RB, which was rectified, in a good way with Marco Motta, albeit it too late.
I've made my feelings known regarding managers versus directors of football picking players. That said, I would hope that a chief scout would come in with some players in mind, and even if they all aren't what a manager/DoF wants, you'd think there will be some common ground.
As I see it, we're so desperately in need of scouting and transfer targets, anything helps at this point. There will be plenty of teams who have sacked their manager and the next manager will be coming in over the summer and re-assessing the scouting department's targets. And once we've eventually staffed manager/DoF, if not when really, then the manager can work with the scout to tweak the type of players they're looking for.
@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?
This explains your tactical assessments of the footy (which I love, by the way).
On a side note, are you by any chance looking for work....
When we had three left backs, wasn't it THD, Fox, and Bergdich? Against...Bolton I think, where THD was sent off?
While I take your point, Bergdich wasn't much of a left back, and we had no cover at RB, which was rectified, in a good way with Marco Motta, albeit it too late.
I've made my feelings known regarding managers versus directors of football picking players. That said, I would hope that a chief scout would come in with some players in mind, and even if they all aren't what a manager/DoF wants, you'd think there will be some common ground.
As I see it, we're so desperately in need of scouting and transfer targets, anything helps at this point. There will be plenty of teams who have sacked their manager and the next manager will be coming in over the summer and re-assessing the scouting department's targets. And once we've eventually staffed manager/DoF, if not when really, then the manager can work with the scout to tweak the type of players they're looking for.
No, not looking for work. Happy to be outside the Rat Race, but enjoyed it when I was involved.
I couldn't see Bergdich as a left back at all. Wasn't it Fox, Young & THD?
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.
I think she is a very literal person and needs to control ...it would not surprise me if the description is exactly as stated.
She's extremely self-important when it comes down to it. Look at the fuss over Companies House, which was no more than an insignificant prank, or the grandstanding at the latest conference, with the bonkers complaint that people were making fun of her on message boards.
There was also an interesting story on Facebook about her calling Bob Bolder away from the match sponsors, making it clear her time was more important than any discourtesy to them in interrupting. She has sneered at the suggestion people know better than her or might have any useful insight to offer, whether Varney or individual fans at a meeting. I can quite believe she also thinks she's a football expert.
Don't want to overly nitpick but THD, Bergdich, and Yun are all LB/LM. Obviously it's far from ideal to have three LBs on the pitch at the same time, particularly those three as none are brilliant attackers, but squads are stretched over the course of a season. I view it as more symbolic of a larger problem than anything. For me, playing THD at RB, or on the left side of a diamond as is what happened when Jackson came off against Ipswich (to be fair I think it was for only around 20 min, although we did concede in that time), was more problematic and showing of our lack of squad depth.
I can quite believe she also thinks she's a football expert.
Oh surely not, if she has any real input , excluding a gentle opinion, whatsoever on football matters outside budgetary requirements then that is beyond ridiculous!
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.
I think she is a very literal person and needs to control ...it would not surprise me if the description is exactly as stated.
She's extremely self-important when it comes down to it. Look at the fuss over Companies House, which was no more than an insignificant prank, or the grandstanding at the latest conference, with the bonkers complaint that people were making fun of her on message boards.
There was also an interesting story on Facebook about her calling Bob Bolder away from the match sponsors, making it clear her time was more important than any discourtesy to them in interrupting. She has sneered at the suggestion people know better than her or might have any useful insight to offer, whether Varney or individual fans at a meeting. I can quite believe she also thinks she's a football expert.
Sneering at all and sundry Above any criticism I am right, you are wrong attitude
With just the above, amongst many other faults, this individual is trouble.
I was just about to reference this Scoham. It was probably one of the worst performances I'd seen from a Charltom player (Bergdich) im years. Who could forget such a night
Presume his first job is to find out what remains of the old scouting network, then he has to sift through the stack of emails Daisy will send him with links to her signing targets (based on You Tube clips and also which agents have told her how great she is), and then he waits for the new manager because there is no point making signings before the new man arrives (as Johnson, Poyet etc found out when Riga re-appeared).
Don't want to overly nitpick but THD, Bergdich, and Yun are all LB/LM. Obviously it's far from ideal to have three LBs on the pitch at the same time, particularly those three as none are brilliant attackers, but squads are stretched over the course of a season. I view it as more symbolic of a larger problem than anything. For me, playing THD at RB, or on the left side of a diamond as is what happened when Jackson came off against Ipswich (to be fair I think it was for only around 20 min, although we did concede in that time), was more problematic and showing of our lack of squad depth.
The three left backs on the pitch at the same time, was to illustrate how the laptop numpties in conjunction with Pinnochio sign a load of players with no idea if they fit into a team structure. Playing a left back as a left midfielder, doesn't make the player a left midfielder. It means you have two left backs on the left flank.
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.
I think she is a very literal person and needs to control ...it would not surprise me if the description is exactly as stated.
She's extremely self-important when it comes down to it......I can quite believe she also thinks she's a football expert.
There's a fair few on here who think they're football experts as well.
Don't want to overly nitpick but THD, Bergdich, and Yun are all LB/LM. Obviously it's far from ideal to have three LBs on the pitch at the same time, particularly those three as none are brilliant attackers, but squads are stretched over the course of a season. I view it as more symbolic of a larger problem than anything. For me, playing THD at RB, or on the left side of a diamond as is what happened when Jackson came off against Ipswich (to be fair I think it was for only around 20 min, although we did concede in that time), was more problematic and showing of our lack of squad depth.
The three left backs on the pitch at the same time, was to illustrate how the laptop numpties in conjunction with Pinnochio sign a load of players with no idea if they fit into a team structure. Playing a left back as a left midfielder, doesn't make the player a left midfielder. It means you have two left backs on the left flank.
I don't disagree, but I think THD looks better suited to a wingback or wide midfield role at this stage. Find his defending unconvincing. Bergdich...I dunno.
Mr Head as a Head Scout seems to have a very decent CV certainly in analysing the playing strengths and weaknesses of opposing teams whether that lends itself quite so ably to the construction of a squad is another matter.
For now he at least brings the industry working knowledge and experience the club so desperately needs. May he be empowered to fulfil his duties to the best of his ability.
I fear however some are latching on to some hope that we are seeing a material change here.
Yet for all of the grand title unless the job description as advertised has materially changed Mr Head is a replacement for Phil Chapple. The same Phil Chapple, who served us well under previous regimes but who to all intents and purposes was largely ignored by this one.
Where is there any indication the new appointment is a quasi Director of Football? Where is he charged with setting out any template for the construction of the football part for the business? Where is it defined he, within defined budgets, will be the decision maker?
As per the job description the role is to "Liaise with the Head Coach, Scouting Network and CEO with regards to the identification and signing of talented players".
That is liaise not lead, not manage, not determine but liaise. I suggest he, in large part, will likely replace the gathered ensemble assembled in Belgium overseeing the myriads of analysts buried in the bowels of Staprix.
It appears to be a small step in the right direction but unless he is suitably empowered then are we, in terms of end deliverables, in reality going to be any further forward?
Simply rebranding Phil Chapples' old job reads more like an arse covering exercise by the CEO defending her position by removing the faceless underlings previously identifying recruitment targets. I fear more smoke and mirrors than any substantial change in "modus operandi".
To those who argue the use of a Head of Recruitment is preferable to the English manager model who will likely gone in 12 months anyway presupposes there is any more permanence or empowerment to the role of Head of Recruitment.
Judging by Mr Heads' CV I am not sure such an argument stands much scrutiny.
To argue preparation may well have been undertaken by any number of existing/ former club personnel with regard to bringing in any number of players, is fine but palpably such has not been the case with the appointment of a manager/ head coach.
I entirely agree no club exists nor should exist on the input of any one individual but when you are reliant on the head coach to deliver a successful squad it is, with limited resources, absolutely imperative he is in tune with the thinking that has sought to bring certain players to the club.
As the Chief scout job description states the job is to liaise with the Head Coach. At the time of writing he will be liaising with an empty chair.
Much as that may be preferable to some of the previous incumbents of such furniture to try and move forward with out a head coach merely puts an extra burden on your negotiations with prospective head coaches and players with the very real possibility of people pulling in different directions - none of which is ideal and frankly should have been completely unnecessary.
As I have indicated before if you are competing to try and bring players to the club then the player and his agent will want to be very clear exactly where a player will fit within the squad and the role the head coach sees him playing over the season.
In the absence of a head coach/ manager no such dialogue is possible. Those clubs with managers "in situ" will always be able to offer a stronger commitment. We are immediately negotiating from a weaker position. It sends the wrong message.
At this point such challenges are not insurmountable but to overcome them will present barriers which were completely unnecessary.
For all of the inactivity on transfers and signings currently in the media any amount of ground work and handshakes will have already been done by many clubs and player agents.
For a regime still yet to sign a permanent deal for a British player directly from another British club we appear to still be adjusting our starting blocks for a hurdle race where many will have already reached the 2nd or 3rd hurdle.
Once again the regime appears to be out of step with industry best practice.
transfer window closed, what's the point in having a head of recruitment now??
joking
Was just going to say this myself... You watch we'll hire someone again in December on a month's contract and then come May we'll hire someone else to cover the Summer months, I know your joking but this approach really wouldnt surprise me!!
Comments
RD decides on the budget for CAFC which is the responsibility of the CEO with the assistance of her SMT.
If we had a coach/manager he would specify the type of player he wants to the Chief Scout who then draws up a short list which is discussed with the manager who goes to the CEO to see what the budget will allow and then the manager should negotiate with the player and his agent.
The problem we have is no manager and an inexperienced and stubborn CEO and until she goes we are lost.
On a side note, are you by any chance looking for work....
When we had three left backs, wasn't it THD, Fox, and Bergdich? Against...Bolton I think, where THD was sent off?
While I take your point, Bergdich wasn't much of a left back, and we had no cover at RB, which was rectified, in a good way with Marco Motta, albeit it too late.
I've made my feelings known regarding managers versus directors of football picking players. That said, I would hope that a chief scout would come in with some players in mind, and even if they all aren't what a manager/DoF wants, you'd think there will be some common ground.
As I see it, we're so desperately in need of scouting and transfer targets, anything helps at this point. There will be plenty of teams who have sacked their manager and the next manager will be coming in over the summer and re-assessing the scouting department's targets. And once we've eventually staffed manager/DoF, if not when really, then the manager can work with the scout to tweak the type of players they're looking for.
I couldn't see Bergdich as a left back at all. Wasn't it Fox, Young & THD?
http://mobile.cafc.co.uk/fixtures-results/match-report/index.aspx?matchid=3833241
There was also an interesting story on Facebook about her calling Bob Bolder away from the match sponsors, making it clear her time was more important than any discourtesy to them in interrupting. She has sneered at the suggestion people know better than her or might have any useful insight to offer, whether Varney or individual fans at a meeting. I can quite believe she also thinks she's a football expert.
Don't want to overly nitpick but THD, Bergdich, and Yun are all LB/LM. Obviously it's far from ideal to have three LBs on the pitch at the same time, particularly those three as none are brilliant attackers, but squads are stretched over the course of a season. I view it as more symbolic of a larger problem than anything. For me, playing THD at RB, or on the left side of a diamond as is what happened when Jackson came off against Ipswich (to be fair I think it was for only around 20 min, although we did concede in that time), was more problematic and showing of our lack of squad depth.
Above any criticism
I am right, you are wrong attitude
With just the above, amongst many other faults, this individual is trouble.
Meire didn't even mutter a word to him.
joking
Reckon he'd be up for casting some light on ol' Mowgli? (Thomas Driesen) Surely as the Chief Scout / HoR he'd know about Thomas?