You cant think of any and they arent suited to English football?
Maybe mate but
Those teams had coaches rather than managers. They may have some input into transfers, but the DOF signs the players.
Aren't they all sporting directors, which is more of an executive/boardroom position, rather than another layer on top of the coaching system?
Sporting Director and Director of Football are pretty much the same thing. They buy players who suit the club's vision. The coaches job is to mould them into a team. Chelsea are the perfect example. They go through managers at a rate of knots, but keep their Director of Football and have continued success.
Chelsea have had a few DoF over the years, Arnesen was first then that Emanalo guy now it's Granovskaia. It's not just the big teams either, teams like Brentford and Brighton have got the system working lower down the league. Our issue is we have an owner who uses agents for advice rather than the people he is actually paying at the club to do the job, we then end up with conflicting opinions/views on stuff which leaves us with people pulling in different directions and it's why you get these stories of 'It's a Carlo signing' 'It's a Brands signing' 'It's a Silva singing' There is no plan at EFC, you just can't have one and it work under the current setup, if we are going to stick with the DOF then they have to have 100% control of everything otherwise get rid of it imo.
Fair enough. I had it as DoFs being embedded within the day-to-day running of the club (office at the training ground, etc), whereas I thought sporting directors were more hands-off.
Klopp didn't want the recommended buy of Salah.
No, of course, those teams have wonderful managers, thats not up for debate.
I did say similar, the problem with the DoF role is quite frankly nobody really knows what they are meant to be doing, the role is vastly different from club to club.
Wait........
