The club may have been burned under the reign of David Flitcroft but just because the first appointment didn’t work doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, Rob Fielding argues.
Rob Fielding writes…
The club’s awful performances this season have prompted a lot of criticism of the club’s owners. Fans see a repeat of the 2023-24 season – a poor summer transfer window, the club being too slow to replace the manager and so on… There have been calls for the owners to step aside with the argument that they haven’t learned from their mistakes and don’t understand the football side of the club. While no owner is immune from this sort of criticism (the buck stops at the top) and Vale are plummeting to relegation, I do worry that any change in ownership would be a huge gamble.
For me, this appointment would be logical. Port Vale don’t stop appointing managers just because the odd one (or half dozen in Vale’s case) were poor, so why should they get rid of a key role just because the first incumbent was unsuccessful?
So what else could the club do? Well, if the issue is the lack of footballing knowledge at the higher levels of the club how about reviving the Director of Football role which was vacated by David Flitcroft? Now hang on, before you all close this page in disbelief, let me explain myself. Here are three reasons why I think it would work…
- When the club appointed Flitcroft, I remember Carol Shanahan saying that he came in at board level because they (the owners and the staff) didn’t have that deep knowledge of the football side of the business. So now Flitcroft has departed presumably that lack of knowledge is still there. I think it shows in some of the decision making.
- While Flitcroft’s appointment itself may have been a disaster does that mean the role was a bad idea? Perhaps the club should still be looking for someone to fill that role? An old head, with deep knowledge of the game who can advise on everything from football staff appointments to scouting and training ground needs etc?
- Perhaps one of the reasons why the Flitcroft appointment didn’t work was due to the circumstances in which it arose? Flitcroft talked himself into the role when applying to be manager. And as a result he wrote his own job description which included responsibility for (mostly poor) transfers. I think the club can learn from this and exclude anyone appointed from the transfer side of things – that should always be solely down to the manager in my view. In addition to a clear role, there would need to be a proper application process, so the club can actually compare candidates (they had no one to compare Flitcroft to). They may even want to look to maybe involve the existing football folk (president John Rudge and manager Jon Brady, for instance) on the interview panel.
How would that work? Well, in my view CEO Matt Hancock doesn’t have that deep knowledge of the game. However, by all accounts, he’s done a decent job in charge of the club’s corporate site, the marketing and it’s role in the community. Perhaps Hancock needs to have someone alongside him who can do the football stuff?
Perhaps the club can move Hancock to Head of Non Football Operations and bring in someone else as Head of Football Operations?
For me, this appointment would be logical. Port Vale don’t stop appointing managers just because the odd one (or half dozen in Vale’s case) were poor, so why should they get rid of a key role just because the first incumbent was unsuccessful? Furthermore, if it works then it stabilises the club and the whole debate on the future (or not) of the current owners may go away.
What do you think? A good idea or bonkers? Share your thoughts and post a comment below.
Give it a Spin ( nothing to lose )
No no no no make tje manager do his jjob
I posted this in the “Carol and her family” forum thread yesterday and almost replicates what you are saying tint this article Rob.
The problem with the club is that its been run like a hobby and not as a professional football club, with professional experienced personnel in place to realize / help the owners and fans aspirations and goals.
Its doing brilliant for the foundation / community / academy / ladies team the ground (ish) and everything else associated with the club, which is in my lifetime of supporting the club since the mid 70’s, is great to see, and I applaud the owners for that. However due to how the footballing side of the business that appears to be so very lacking professionally all the other things that are been excelled in, pale into insignificance, because without one the others will decline and also eventually be none existent. Which is what we are experiencing in what is so very evident on the footballing side at present, and has been the case for the last 3+ years unfortunately. All IMO of course.
I don’t agree, more people mean more opinions which can cause an additional level of complexity. Brady is rooting out the bad wood and rightly so this bunch of players aren’t up to league one standard. Yes we are going to be relegated let’s live with it. As far as the Shaneghans not having much football knowledge I think you’ll be surprised they have been bullshitted so many times over the last few years, bigger squad etc. They now know that treating these over payed footballers like royalty has backfired as they have taken the pics. No Brady has to crack the whip
@Geoff and @Simon
To answer a few of those points:
1) I am proposing this role WOULD let the manager do his job as it would sit above him. Unlike Flitcroft, it would be Brady making signings etc.
2) Where I see this role working would be for someone at the board level to give that football opinion e.g. No, don’t give a manager who hasn’t done anything yet five year contracts; We need to make a managerial change now not wait; We really need this budget for the football operation not the commercial side and so on.
3) I’d love to know the evidence of the Shanahan’s football knowledge. The next points you make (about them being misled) only suggest the opposite and why they do need footballing expertise. Crucially this would only be footballing advice – they’d still be in charge.
4) In terms of “more people mean more complexity” – we already have four non-football people on the board. But we have zero people on the board with football knowledge. If we don’t want too many voices I would argue you may want to cut a couple of the non-footballing board members out and add this one in their place.
Completely agree with you Paul, they’re making a joke out of our club for the sake of ‘community’. Need a manager who knows what he wants and owners who knows how to get good managers.
#CarolOut #HancockOut
Without a doubt we need a DOF.
The board ownership and management structure is weak.
Hi Rob as a ball point figure do you know what the salary of a director of football would be.I do know this the majority of the players Moore signed would not be allowed to support the Vale never mind play for them
@Vale fan
Presumably it would be the same as Flitcroft’s DOF salary.
I think that the idea of a Head of Football Operations is excellent. What it needs is a clearly defined structure and role and most importantly the right appointment. JB is responsible for the team and transfer activity and Matt Hancock looks after non footballing activities. The challenge is finding the right person
Another excellent article Rob, thanks, and with the right incumbent the role could work very well.
As for the shouts of Carol out, BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
I think you have the situation perfectly explained in your article Rob. The role of Head/ Director of Football is essential for our club. We have excellent owners and they need to complimented by someone who knows football.
Well said and I hope others, in influential positions, will follow it through .
You did the article last week saying the club was top heavy with employees, but now you want to add another body to the wage bill, who could possibly be the highest earner at the club. Personally I do struggle to work out what managers do nowadays, they have assistant managers, first team coaches, fitness, recovery, goalkeeping, set piece, defensive and attacking couches. If they are responsible for the team’s results, then they should solely be responsible for the signing of players. Then the buck stops with them. As for Hancock, the club has been loosing £millions for years, yet he is credited with doing a good job ?? I’ll come back to his comments on ceasing a match day programme. He made the ridiculous comment, that the club had been loosing £30,000 a year for a number of years on producing one. Stating we were only selling 2/300 a game! Yet the club was having 2/3000 a game printed! My question to Mr Hancock would be why did you continue to print so many programmes knowing full well they were not selling, and why did it take “A NUMBER OF YEARS TO REALISE THIS” The guys a joke ! As for football men on the board. You need sensible business men on the board (and not full family or employees of nodding dogs) and the manager reporting and working with them! Everyone wants to complicate everything and have someone else to pass the buck to. And if the pitch isn’t draining correctly after paying money to have it done, get them back to do it again!!
@Ian Mountford
to answer your points
1. Yes I am saying cut staff and bring in someone in a key role. I’m talking about removing some staff who aren’t needed and bringing in one who is. A net loss in number of employees. It’s totally logical because there are far too many staff in off-pitch roles. I think some can definitely be removed there and this key role come in where we have a massive gap (people with football expertise). It also pays for itself if it stops the club getting key decisions wrong which can result in relegation and losing millions.
2. Secondly, like another commentator I think you are confusing the role I am suggesting. I am talking about someone sitting above the manager not assisting the manager. The manager is responsible for results but this person decides who that manager is and when to get rid – thus avoiding the issues we had with DM and AC both being removed too late and crazy decisions like 5 year contracts. It gives the owners someone with football knowhow to listen to – knowledge I think (for all their qualities) they lack.
3. On Matt Hancock, yes I think he has actually done a good job away from the pitch. We are not the only club to stop a matchday programme and that’s simple finances – it was making us a loss (also I am pretty sure his words were we needed to sell 2-300 and didn’t – i.e. we were printing that many but not enough bought them and they were being thrown away! So not a problem of not printing enough) He’s overseen the RW suite and the new Directors suite – key revenue generators on match days and non match days and is heading the Vale Park campus project. So, yes I think that’s “good” when you are talking off-field. Every club is losing millions and I reckon our losses would be even more dramatic if he hadn’t made those improvements commercially. Do you seriously think in this day and age that a CEO at League 1/2 level is going to be able to turn Port Vale into a profitable club? MH’s job is to mitigate losses and he’s done that by increasing the commercial income – which has gone up significantly since he took over. He’s no miracle worker who’s going to turn a profit but he has made improvements hence the “good” rating.
4. Totally disagree on your board comments. You don’t just need “sensible business men” (or as I am sure Carol would correct you “sensible business men or women”) as football isn’t an industry like other businesses. Most football clubs in the land would shut if it was just business people because they mostly make a loss. It’s a mix – you don’t not just want business people in there (of course you do want business expertise though) but they also need to have an affinity with the club and be willing to lose some significant amounts of money while you also need someone on the board that enables the football side to have an input too. I’m not talking a huge board here – two or three for the business side, one for the football would do it for me. For that reason I think you need football expertise above the manager so when he is not performing someone can say so at board level and thanks to their knowledge and understanding shout when it’s time to go, to stick with them, who to appoint, what length contract to offer, what questions to ask them in interview, come up with a long-term plan for the football side and so on.
The owners might say “it seems we didn’t need a DOF when we won promotion last year, but perhaps we need one now because we’re bottom of the league”. The game has always been about results. Vale have certainly had successes through the decades with a traditional team manager operating without a DOF. In the here and now, even with the current Vale ownership and Board structure the club, I think they should let Brady do his job of managing all aspects of the team, including player signings and exits. If club legends John Rudge and/or Phil Sproson is fit and well, there are few better qualified to give the Board footballing consultancy on a needs basis, while Brady proves himself. Brady has taken on an extremely difficult task, as did John Rudge in 1983. Like Rudge, if Brady is successful he and the Board won’t need a DOF.
I tend to agree, although if it were done if would have to be in such a way as to compliment, not alienate Brady. A name keeps popping up in my head in relation to this. An experienced DOF would cost and would have no guarantee of success. If it were to happen I’d like a someone with experience, someone local, someone with some sort of connection to Vale, someone that might care just slightly about the club. What’s Micky Adams doing nowadays?
Point 1 / totally agree with you on the staffing levels, as I said last week, we’ve gone from each person doing 2or3 jobs, to each job needing 2or3 persons to do them. Point 2 / I’m not confusing the job description you are suggesting. To me managers nowadays have that much assistance it’s ridiculous. Assistant Manager, First team coach and coach’s for every position under the sun. The club secretary was the brains at the football club who advised the owners, and sorted contracts out ect, but the Shanahans decided to dispose of ours (Mr Garlick) and employ Hancock who knows nothing about football. ITS PORT VALE not BARCELONA. You cut your cloth to suit your finances. Point 3 / coming back to the programme issue. Why did the club ie Mr Hancock continue to print 2/3000 when they were not selling them ?? You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to realise that! None League clubs manage to turn a programme out and I assume they do it at a profit. Hancock has an army of people below him who are responsible for managing the suite’s down the Vale (as you do see them advertising these jobs from time to time) so presumably these are the people who are bringing the money in. I do not expect the club to make profits of £millions, at the same time I do not expect them to continuously loose £millions a year, without attempting to cutting their clothing to manage or absorb these losses. Point4 / coming back to board members. Again football boards were made up of a mixture of owners, and not just mum dad a one of their kids. The club secretary (who the owners decided they didn’t need) and the manager would also have an input (which was the football knowledge side). As for giving managers a 5year contract, surely your not suggesting you need pay a football expert to advise them that’s not a good idea? They could ask the car park attendant that ! Keep up the good work.