Professionals register now to create your own content and profile, and gain other potential financial, networking and marketing benefits.
Consumers (athletes, enthusiasts) use our quick registration to enhance your experience of the site
18106 views (and counting) for a blog post on iStadia? How?
What did I do to get 18106 views for my post on Michael Phelps, when most only get into the hundreds?1) I chose a topic that was guaranteed to be a popular search term
2) I wrote about it early (in the run up to the Olympics) - you can't always predict hot topics but you can get in on the act early on
3) I made sure that keywords were in the title, text and tags
4) I started with an introductory sentence, and not with a link or image.
5) I included a photo with a description and title (this seems to help - it may be that the post shows up for google images searches).
6) I bookmarked my post extensively - I use socialmarker.com
7) Forgot to mention this firs time round - as a Premium Plus* member my latest blogs appear on my profile, which keeps my profile more 'current', brings the search engine spiders back more often, and in turn means my blogs get crawled more quickly. (*This is also true of Premium members)
You don't always have to blog about your area of expertise - just something that captures your interest, and might serve as a 'bridge' to help members of the public to find YOU. Include a link in your signature to your own website, or to your profile and you will find that your blog posts generate traffic.
This post won't get many hits. Why?
1) The title doesn't have popular keywords in it.
2) I've not bookmarked it.
3) The tags and keywords I have used are very competitive and generic
and probably many other reasons.
But what's important is that you've read it, and I hope you found it useful.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
Director of Football: The end of Football Management as we know it?
This week has seen two managers from the English Premier League, Alan Curbishley and Kevin Keegan, leave their clubs (West Ham and Newcastle United, respectively) quit their posts. In both cases the issue appears to be their loss of control over transfers, and perhaps other aspects of the club management.
This has caused a great deal of debate about management, and the role of the Director of Football in particular. Both Curbishley and Keegan had been working in a structure that included a Director of Football. Both are very experienced managers. Importantly both were in position when Directors were appointed 'above' them.
Both men were used to running the football side of the club.
They reported into the board. They had a backroom team, including an assistant manager, that reported to them. Then, they found that their powers were diminished by the appointment of another man, a Director of Football, who took some of their resonsibilities from them.So what is a Director of Football? Dave Bassett, a long-time football manager, described the role as
" ..... a buffer. The director of football is answerable to the board but there to assist the manager. He's experienced in football and there to help the board members who don't have that experience." (Source: Wikipedia)
This description, for me, captures one of the key problems that occurs when a Director of Football is introduced into a British club, particularly when there is an incumbent manager. Fundamentally, the Director of Football should not be there to "assist" the manager, but to manage the football division or function of the club (including "the manager"). Because of changes in the game, professional football clubs are now complex organisations, with huge commercial and match-day operations. One might argue, therefore, that there is a need to create an executive team, like any large corporate, that works together to create and deliver the whole organisation's strategy, who manager their function "down the line". In this respect, the Director of Football should be the equal of, say, the Finance Director, or the Operations Director and creates the Football Strategy. This should include such things as setting the strategic direction for coaching, talent identification, recruitment (transfers) and youth development (the academy).
Different clubs will define the role of the Director of Football and the head coach, or manager, differently, and I would argue that it doesn't matter what titles you use. But one thing should be clear, the manager reports to the DoF. You simply cannot have any confusion, as there seems to have been at both West Ham and Newcastle.
What this says is that the role of manager is also different. They no longerr report straight to the chairman. They don't set the overall strategy, necessarily. They don't oversee the academy, the scouts, and they may not negotiate contracts.
But they might. They might have the final say on who is recruited. They should have some say. After all, they have to manage the team's performance. Just like when I was recruited I was interviewed by my prosective manager, and by her line manager - but my line manager ultimately has to manage me and probably, therfore, made the ultimate decision.
What absolutely must be clear, however, is where the accountabilities and responsibilities lie. Someone has to make the decisions. In my experience, the person that will "get it in the neck" if the decision is wrong, must be allowed to make it.
The relationship must also work to the advantage of the club, too. This is why it ultimately needs to be a manager-report relationship. That does not mean that it should not be collaborative, open and even friendly. It simply means that ultimately, someone is in charge. I would imagine that both Curbishley and Keegan would have a problem with this, and understandably so with their experience, especially given the retrospective nature of the changes made at their clubs.
So, is there a place in the modern game for the likes of Curbishley or Keegan? The manager that does it all?
I'm going to stick my neck out and say no. Not in a top professional cub. I don't think that a senior football manager, whatever you call them, can do everything from strategy setting to coaching the team and leading them out on matchday.
In every career path you have to make a choice. Are you a manager or a doer? To take the step to the strategic level, every manager has to put behind them - at some point - the hands-on skills that got them where they are. In management, it is often the things that mark you out as sucessful at the start of your career that can get in the way of success as you progress. In a large, complex footballing operation I believe that's a choice that has to be made. You can be a coach (maybe the equivalent to a middle manager, as you also have reports - the coaches and players, maybe support staff), or you can truly become a senior manager.
Indeed, that's what Alex Ferguson is. When Carlos Quieroz was assistant manager, Sir Alex left first team training to him. Yes, he took charge on match day, but he'll have made decisions using the input from his "operational" assistant manager. Call them Director of Football and Head Coach, if you like. Sir Alex manages transfers, and built the struture that has become one of the most productive football factories in modern times. But he doesn't do anything.
At lower levels, even in the professional game, I don't think the complexity is there to necessitate having a Director of Football. In many ways the lower tiers of professional games are the SMEs to the corporates that top the Premier League.
So, the football manager isn't dead. Every club needs someone to manage the football operation. Different clubs will use different models. Director of Football and Head Coach, Manager and Assistant Manager, Director of Football and Manager. It isn't the model that ultimately matters, so much as the implementation. And that's what Newcastle and West Ham got wrong.
--
Rob Robson
Co-founder, iStadia.com
