Manager or Coach?

Brownie · #1 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 09:50 PM

Right....

I'm not sure if everyone is aware of the debate surrounding 'sporting directors', 'coaches' and 'managers' over on the David Villa thread. I can understand if people can't be arsed reading it (!) but I think it poses a genuinely good question.

What would you prefer for Liverpool - a structure which contains a Manager, who has sole responsiblity for identifying and buying players (obviously with help from scouts), or a structure which contains a Coach who trains the team, with the identifying and buying of players being overseen by a Sporting Director.

So - Manager, or Coach?

~~Rashid~~ · #2 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 09:51 PM

A coach would also have a say in transfers, recommend players and suggest ones he wants. This is a pointless thread in England, it's like asking people to vote if they want a foreign manager 20 years ago.

Brownie · #3 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Rashid

A coach would also have a say in transfers, recommend players and suggest ones he wants. This is a pointless thread in England, it's like asking people to vote if they want a foreign manager 20 years ago.

It's not a pointless thread, and even if it was you have a fucking cheek to suggest that!

It's clear to me, the differences between the two scenarios.

Malarkey · #4 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 09:57 PM

Coaches coach the team. Managers manage the teams. For example, Managers maintain the team by transfer listing players and bring in new players. Coaches just look at tactics and training the players.

bigguly · #5 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 09:58 PM

public or private poll?

I've voted manager, has I believe in the structure, if its private.

Brownie · #6 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Malarkey

Coaches coach the team. Managers manage the teams. For example, Managers maintain the team by transfer listing players and bring in new players. Coaches just look at tactics and training the players.

Rashid will be along in a minute to say that a Head Coach is different, or some such other inane crap.

I like the structure of our club, the way it is. I don't want anyone interfering with the managers responsibility of signing players. He should be appointed by the board and then trusted to do his job, which includes final decisions on who to sell/sign as well as picking the team etc.

Brownie · #7 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by bigguly

public or private poll?

I've voted manager, has I believe in the structure, if its private.

Public poll mate - always has to be. The point of a poll for me, is to record what specific people think about certain issues and then debate those issues.

I sound proper gay. It's probably 'cos I am I suppose...

real red · #8 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:03 PM

Manager of course. He can then appoint extra coaches to help him in that side of his job, as he sees fit. He can delegate any coaching tasks to them.

He also gets the services of a scouting department, and he can ask them to wade through the DVDs sent in by agents and any particular matches he wants watched.

As for negotiating transfers - he's involved as much as he feels necessary. If his budget is tight, he needs to be the one who decides if it's worth paying an extra £2m for a striker with the consequence he has to buy a lesser defender than he had planned. If his CEO is any good, he'll know this and do this, if not then the manager can be there during the bidding.

real red · #9 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Brownie

Public poll mate - always has to be. The point of a poll for me, is to record what specific people think about certain issues and then debate those issues.

I sound proper gay. It's probably 'cos I am I suppose...

The legend grows.

Brownie · #10 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by real red

Manager of course. He can then appoint extra coaches to help him in that side of his job, as he sees fit. He can delegate any coaching tasks to them.

He also gets the services of a scouting department, and he can ask them to wade through the DVDs sent in by agents and any particular matches he wants watched.

As for negotiating transfers - he's involved as much as he feels necessary. If his budget is tight, he needs to be the one who decides if it's worth paying an extra �2m for a striker with the consequence he has to buy a lesser defender than he had planned. If his CEO is any good, he'll know this and do this, if not then the manager can be there during the bidding.

Exactly how I see it. Having anyone else involved in the whole process just muddies the waters and provides confusion, as far as i'm concerned.

Brownie · #11 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by real red

The legend grows.

I don't call my manhood 'legend', I call him 'Junior'.

I didn't really understand your post, did I?

bigguly · #12 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Brownie

Public poll mate - always has to be. The point of a poll for me, is to record what specific people think about certain issues and then debate those issues.

I sound proper gay. It's probably 'cos I am I suppose...

Sorry Brownie, I forgot how to access the name roll. I usually vote and don't really check, but this poll was quite interesting!

real red · #13 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Brownie

I don't call my manhood 'legend', I call him 'Junior'.

I didn't really understand your post, did I?

It's all part of the legend that is, "Brownie, and how he got his name".

According to RiS anyway.

Brownie · #14 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by bigguly

Sorry Brownie, I forgot how to access the name roll. I usually vote and don't really check, but this poll was quite interesting!

Yeah no worries mate, whatever floats ya boat!

It is an interesting issue I reckon.

real red · #15 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Brownie

Exactly how I see it. Having anyone else involved in the whole process just muddies the waters and provides confusion, as far as i'm concerned.

I think in most businesses there will be successful members of staff who've got more on their plate than they can really handle. So do their companies hire a person higher up in the structure to help them out?

No. They'll take on staff at a lower level than that employee, for the use of that employee.

Chocolate · #16 (**permalink**) 22nd December 2007, 11:55 PM

A manager. Every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Even more so when you have a man like Rafa. He knows his onions (and his football, too). He's smart financially and knows how to structure a club successfully.

It's important to have a great team behind him but he should have as much control as he wants. He's the man that will take the football club to the very top and needs to be given the power to do so.

His main strength is to act quickly, get it done, get the play and get out. This is where the American owners have really sinned. They needed to be sharp but have held him back.