Dave King response No10.

[buster. 4,846]

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.

 

Thank's for the explanation, you obviously have a fair bit of relevant knowledge around this.

 

I think whenever the moment comes, the RIFC board have to stay strong, believe in the structure and interview accordingly.

There are an increasing amount of modern, progressively orientated coaches/managers out in the marketplace who should present their case with our infrastructure in mind. If I had anything to do with it, those who didn't know about it or hadn't taken the bother to look into it should be struck off the list

 

Given circumstances, a good solid infrastructure is simply well considered and responsible executive decision-making.

I really can't see another route to both success and sustainability.