Liverpool go down Director of Football route

3 Nov, 2010 Jonathan F England, Europe, Latest, Premier League

Someone at Anfield has been reading Just Football. A month ago our very own Gregg Carter wrote a detailed analysis of how a Director of Football model could work in the British game despite it being a more unpopular model of directorship than the traditional managerial system in Britain. Now today, new Liverpool owners John Henry and New England Sports Ventures (NESV) have decided to go down that route at Anfield with the appointment of Damien Comolli as the club’s director of football strategy.

“New England Sports Ventures (NESV) and Liverpool FC are pleased to announce the appointment of Damien Comolli as Director of Football Strategy for Liverpool FC,” reads a message on Liverpool’s website.

NESV Principal Owner John Henry said today: “Damien has a proven track-record of identifying exciting young footballing talent and we are delighted that he has agreed to join Liverpool. Working closely with Roy Hodgson and the coaching staff, I know he will make a valuable contribution to strengthening the Club and the squad as we move forward.

“Today’s announcement is just the first step in creating a leadership group and structure designed to develop, enhance and implement our long-term philosophy of scouting, recruitment, player development and all of the other aspects necessary to build and sustain a club able to consistently compete at the highest level in European football.

“We intend to be bold and innovative. We will not rest until we have restored Liverpool Football Club to the greatness Liverpool fans expect.”

Comolli spent three years as director of football at Tottenham after joining from French club Saint-Etienne in 2005 before being sacked in 2008. Spurs were languishing at the foot of the Premier League table at the time and Comolli, alongside Juande Ramos, was blamed for getting the North London club into a mess with supposedly suspect recruitment of players.

The director of football model has never been universally accepted in England. We prefer one man in charge rather than committees or bodies of egalitarian responsibility. Perhaps this explains why a coalition government was so ridiculed in it’s infancy earlier this year.

This also extends to football. “There can only be one man in charge of recruitment and that has to be the manager,” Henry Winter surmised in a fairly scathing piece for The Telegraph in 2008 in which he depicts Comolli as some sort of Arsenal plant sent to disrupt the enemy, and the general consensus certainly on Fleet Street is that the director of football model is fundamentally flawed.

Despite how staunchly the figurehead model of football management prevalent in Britain is defended, it still seems a strange line of thinking. Contemporary football managers are lucky if they last long enough that their secretary wheels a cake into their office with two candles on it. So quite how it makes sense to bestow such high levels of omnipotent power and influence onto a man who could easily be out of the door 6 weeks later should the wind not quite blow right, doesn’t follow.

Nevertheless the role is ridiculed in Britain. “One of the themes of modern times is the Curse of the Technical Director,” writes Winter in his dissection and this is a school of thought prevalent on these shores.

Comolli’s signings at Spurs included the following:

Dimitar Berbatov – £10.9m from Bayer Leverkusen, Pascal Chambonda – £5.25m from Wigan. Benoit Assou-Ekottu – £3.5m from Lens, Didier Zokora – £8.2m from St Etienne, Ricardo Rocha – £3.3m from Benfica, Dorian Dervitte – undisclosed from Lille, Hossam Ghaly – £3.25m from Feyenoord, Darren Bent – £16.5m from Charlton, Kevin-Prince Boating – £5.4m from Hertha Berlin, Younes Kaboul – £8.2m from Auxerre, Gareth Bale – £10m from Southampton, Adel Taarabt – £2.7m from Lens, Danny Rose – £680,000 from Leeds, Ben Alnwick – £1m from Sunderland, Heurelho Gomes – £7.8m from PSV Eindhoven, Luka Modric – £16.5m from Dinamo Zagreb.

I’ve highlighted those I would consider a success (even if at another club as in the case of Taarabt). Some may argue a case for others. The strike rate, far from the mess it was portrayed in 2008. is largely very good. Gregg’s piece on exactly how the director of football model can be implemented is well worth a read.

Under John Henry and NESV’s ownership, Liverpool appear to now be making a concerted effort to share the load as it were, placing responsibility for important areas of club strategy such as player recruitment on the shoulders of a team rather than an ‘I’. Read the announcement on Comolli above and pay particular attention the bit in bold. Diluting the power of the figurehead manager is the new goal.

“In every transaction you must attempt to lower your risk and increase your potential to succeed,” stated Henry when he and his business partners took over the Boston Red Sox baseball team in 2002. Appointing Comolli and spreading the power base at the top of Liverpool is a clear attempt to lower that risk. It will doubtless be followed by other similar appointments.

Reading up on how Henry transformed the Red Sox, within 2 years, from underachieving idealistic dreamers to World Series winners for the first time in 86 years one running theme emerges – his investment in both playing personnel and importantly, the club’s structure. As the American attempts to reproduce that strategy at Liverpool, Damien Comolli is the first piece in the jigsaw.

(pic via errecielle on Flickr)

Coaching, Damien Comolli, Director of football, Liverpool

Share This Post!

About Jonathan F

The boss of this here... Creator and Editor of Just-Football.com, world football analyst, watcher, freelancer and all-round enthusiast. French football analyst for Football Radar. Write for FourFourTwo, have also written for ITV, When Saturday Comes and others.

8 Comments

Peter
November 4, 2010 • 7:04 pm

Based on the fact you included Taarabt because he is a success at QPR surely Bent can be included for being a success at Sunderland. I would also not consider Kevin Prince Boateng a success either at Tottenham or Protsmouth. Although for Ghana in the World Cup he was clearly a cut above the rest.

Most of these players were signed in the Martin Jol & Juande Ramos era and remember how poorly they played under Ramos. The fact the change of managers by bringing in Redknapp changed fortunes, shows how the manager is the still the most important figure. Redknapp is the one responsible for Bale’s rise and for turning Gomes and Modric into world class players.

It should also be remembered that Comolli was not the only one looking for Bale when he was at Southampton. Manchester United were thought to be the biggest option for him and Ryan Giggs even told Bale at length why Man Utd would be his best option. So credit has to go to Comolli for being able to entice him to Spurs over Man Utd.

The article on this website about how a director of football can work in England. The reason it hasn’t, is because of the managers feeling the appointments of directors of football are there because they don’t know how to do there job. The directors of football are there to find good signings and highlight key areas for development in a team: these are areas where the manager always feels strongly. Managers feel under pressure to get success when a director comes in as the director is there to make signings for him.

This can also lead to the biggest problem for a club. Divisions within: rifts are caused when directors make signings a manager does not neccesserily want. If a player is bought by a director with no influence from the manager, the player also feels at risk. The manager may decide he doesn’t value his worth and so sticks him on the bench. This won’t god down well with the director or his boss: the Chairman. The chairman doesn’t want to waste money on a benchwarmer, so he may call in the manager to explain his actions. Thus, rifts begin.

Also, the player feels like a pawn in a power struggle between the chairman and his loyal director and the manager. We have seen rifts before: Benitez fell out with Hicks & Gillet over Robbie Keane’s signing, Mourinho’s relationship with Abramovic crumbled over Andriy Shevchanko’s worth and there are numerous signings on your Spurs list where Comolli forced players on Martin Jol. Prince-Boateng, Bent, Ghaly, Rocha, Taarabt & I believe a certain Gareth Bale. Bale may have become a world class success but it wasn’t always the way. For his first 20 games or so he was a curse, when he was playing, Spurs would lose. It is down to management that he is succeeding now.

The manager needs to know his job is safe and that he has a valued opinion on transfer targets. Look at the system at a club like Real Madrid where managers come and go like Christmas cards every year. The players need to know where they stand and constant manager changes are good for them. All in all, the manager and the director of football will need to agree on transfer targets not go over each others heads. That is the way to success for a team like Liverpool.
- Jonathan F
  November 4, 2010 • 7:58 pm
  
  Wait, is that THE Peter? How have you been my friend? I’ve been wondering how you are lately!*
  
  Some very intelligent points made and I agree with a lot of them.
  
  Clearly, the director of football model is only going to work if manager and director are perfectly in tandem. In the examples you’ve given, and invariably in England, DoFs are brought in mid-way through a manager’s reign, and this is perceived by everyone (rightly or wrongly) as a slight on the manager and his job to that point, immediately causing problems from the get-go.
  
  However, and taking Sevilla as a model (where Ramos himself performed much better), if a manager comes in with the DoF already in place, the structure is explained to him and he is aware of it from Day 1. It is then up to him to fit into the ethos of the club. The DoF and staff at Sevilla have their body of contacts and scouting network, they know who to target, and they work with the manager to identify the positions he feels need strengthening. It can help him lighten the load of his job too.
  
  I think for the DoF model in England to succeed it is a matter of winning over the scepticism that reigns in this country. We assume the DoF model is flawed (a perception driven by the media) and it also gives them a good storyline to try and dig holes in the relationship by portraying it as an affront to the manager. If I remember rightly, I recall Harry Redknapp implying he wouldn’t stand for a DoF to be appointed at Portsmouth as if it would be some sort of slight on his character. It is that perception which hinders the model from being given a fair chance here.
  
  I’m not arguing that its a better model than the current one. Merely that it isn’t as abhorrent as it is portrayed, and has worked well in other countries.
  
  *if it isn’t pardon my giddiness and thankyou for commenting!
Peter
November 4, 2010 • 10:57 pm

Yes it is me. I have for a while been meaning to get back to Reading this blog. Been very busy with work and forgotten all about this blog. You certainly know how to do a nice welcome, didn’t realise I was missed so much! I happily will agree with most of your refernces to it working well. It may not have come across in the article but I believe it can work. The model of spanish teams does work as real can’t exactly be said to have done poorly and your model of Sevilla worked, try have had there most successful years ever with back to back urfa cup wins to boot.

The media can of course be said to be critical and many of the football journalists are very old fashioned, listening to alan green or graham Taylor and you are transported back to the 1970’s and 1980’s. But it could be a help to managers. As the football world searches more and more for younger and younger talent, and with the world more open you need more people to work for you but you have to wonder whether that’s not what talent scouts and assistants are for. However as seen a DoF can be successful.

I wondered of you knew whether the director of football is used in other major leagues? Such as Italy, Germany or the Netherlands.
- Jonathan F
  November 15, 2010 • 4:11 am
  
  Hi Peter,
  
  No its great to read comments from you – always informative and good at stirring debate. And as a long-term reader of Just Football I’m always happy to know you still keep an eye on the site! And interested to hear any feedback you may have on it as well – as a loyal reader I take your opinion seriously.
  
  Back on topic; the director of football model doesn’t have the same stigma attached to it abroad as it does in England. Variations of it are used all around Europe. It is popular in Italy (Palermo as an example off the top of my head) and others.
  
  I think Liverpool’s current predicament is actually a perfect case in point of support for the model. If Hodgson, under intense pressure right now, were to be sacked – what happens to his signings (Poulsen, Konchesky etc)? After half a season those players’ positions at the club may then be redundant. A DoF model allows directors and others more control to dictate recruitment policy to ensure the club’s long-term strategy is not based on the whims of a manager who may not last 6 months.
  
  For example – Glen Johnson is apparently not favoured by Hodgson (and was publicly criticised by him recently). If Hodgson decided to sell him (probably at a loss) and then loses his job, Liverpool lose an important asset all for the price of a difference of opinions from a man potentially soon out of the door. DoF model therefore adds a bit more insurance if you will against the risk posed by managers who, for whatever reason, may not adapt.