Dave King response No10.

[Big Jaws 570]

Scottish womens football may be an emerging participative sport and if it is then great.

However SWF will not be an emerging market in terms of making money.

 

Aye Ok... I'm away tae record the tennis on my Betamax!

[craig 5,199]

Infrastructure is hugely important and it is certainly now being treated accordingly.

 

This may not be popular or PC but unless self-financing / sustainable, I'd drop the Ladies team from RIFC responsibility. They could set-up independently and reach the level they reach but at the end of the day, very few are interested and IMO it's next to unwatchable for more than 10 minutes.

 

You also have to consider that UEFA and FIFA have an expectation that pro clubs should be encouraging, enhancing and embracing the female game. I believe, though could be wrong, that there is funding available for women's football from UEFA/FIFA.

[buster. 4,808]

You also have to consider that UEFA and FIFA have an expectation that pro clubs should be encouraging, enhancing and embracing the female game. I believe, though could be wrong, that there is funding available for women's football from UEFA/FIFA.

 

I think every effort should be made to get both boys and girls to play football (or any other sport for that matter) and that shouldn't be for what are essentially businesses (football clubs) to do.

 

Clubs play their part in the development of 'elite prospects' (mens) in mutual interest with SFA but the government and the sports governing bodies should be generally encouraging sporting activity and providing places where everyone can engage in it.

 

At a level such as where Rangers Ladies play, then RIFC could encourage and modestly provide, eg. kit, training space or whatever but not directly fund competitive ambitions IMO.

[buster. 4,808]

What do folk think of the infrastructure (Technical Board) part of the 'answer' ?

 

A ‘Technical Board,’ consisting of the Manager, Assistant Manager, Head of Academy, Head of Goalkeeping, Head of Recruitment, Managing Director and Director of Finance and Administration, has been established to oversee our whole football philosophy from the top of the Club to the bottom

[craig 5,199]

What do folk think of the infrastructure (Technical Board) part of the 'answer' ?

 

I don't have a great deal of complaint over it - though if it is a true "Technical Board" then there should be little need for the MD or DoF. However, in fairness, some of the remit of the technical board would require funding, hence the inclusion of the DoF I assume - and the MD I presume is included so that he knows what the Technical Board's direction is.

 

I think it is vital that Manager, Asst Manager and Head of Academy are included.

[der Berliner 3,264]

Scottish womens football may be an emerging participative sport and if it is then great.

However SWF will not be an emerging market in terms of making money......

 

edit

........at least not for football clubs.

 

And you watch Rangers for what reason again?

[buster. 4,808]

I don't have a great deal of complaint over it - though if it is a true "Technical Board" then there should be little need for the MD or DoF. However, in fairness, some of the remit of the technical board would require funding, hence the inclusion of the DoF I assume - and the MD I presume is included so that he knows what the Technical Board's direction is.

 

I think it is vital that Manager, Asst Manager and Head of Academy are included.

 

I don't see a DoF position, nor see the need for one. The TB seems to have all the angles covered.

 

It's one thing to have a structure but then and especially at the beginning, it's only worth what the individuals involved are capable of giving in terms of expertise and vision. The exciting thing for me is the apparent/obvious calibre of the people involved. eg. We need the right people choosing the boys to go on the Boclair project.

 

At a time when we have financial challenges, this was the only route that made viable sense.

If we want to be both successful and sustainable, we have to make it work.

The support may need to have some patience.

 

The other thing is that if and when MW leaves then we will have a footballing structure in place that would require new personnel that were a good fit with the structure, rather than the other way round.

Edited June 29, 2016 by buster.

[calscot 0]

I always think a DoF leads to a weak manager...

[craig 5,199]

I don't see a DoF position, nor see the need for one. The TB seems to have all the angles covered.

 

It's one thing to have a structure but then and especially at the beginning, it's only worth what the individuals involved are capable of giving in terms of expertise and vision. The exciting thing for me is the apparent/obvious calibre of the people involved. eg. We need the right people choosing the boys to go on the Boclair project.

 

At a time when we have financial challenges, this was the only route that made viable sense.

If we want to be both successful and sustainable, we have to make it work.

The support may need to have some patience.

 

The other thing is that if and when MW leaves then we will have a footballing structure in place that would require new personnel that were a good fit with the structure, rather than the other way round.

 

My DoF = Director of Finance, not Director of Football

 

The boys on the Boclair project are the top Academy kids, not all obviously. The Academy staff have spent a lot of time on developing that and have spent a lot of time deliberating over who those kids would be. I could be wrong (probably am) but this Boclair project smacks of Warburton to me - reason I say that is because Watford were pioneering with this type of set up back in 2005 - they partnered with a state school called Harefield Academy just outside Watford. Their Academy kids get educated at the school and then stay on-site after school for Academy training sessions, which at that point in time gave the Academy kids 20 hours a week training, far in excess of any other Academy (interesting aside... Mariappa came through that program). I only know so much about this as my kid is off to Harefield to Board in September.

 

Any Technical Board MUST have the Manager, Assistant Manager (for any possible future succession planning) and the Head of Academy (for continuity and progression from Academy to 1st team). I'm not convinced it needs your MD of Director of Finance but, as said, finances will play a part so instead of having either to pass info to the FD or MD it saves them getting information 2nd hand - so have no real issue with this.

 

Regarding getting the right personnel to fit the structure rather than the other way around - couldn't agree more.... so long as you actually can get the appropriate personnel with similar philosophy. Swansea are a good example of this in working practice - they had Martinez who, I believe, created the structure and when he went the job was fairly straight forward for Rodgers and similarly when he left fairly straight forward for Laudrup. The issue, from my perspective, is when you get 3 or 4 or 5 iterations (managers) down the line and the lines on the philosophy become blurred.

 

But it is absolutely the right thing to do.

[craig 5,199]

I always think a DoF leads to a weak manager...

 

As I said, my DoF is Director of Finance, not Director of Football.....