A Head Coach not a Manager

[RIP]

In his interview, Malky has emphasised that we wont be offering a Manager role.

The press and a lot of our support appear to be sticking with the term 'Manager'. Is that because they don't understand the difference or because they don't think there's much difference in the level of responsibility?

Are their candidates out there who may have been attracted to that role at Hibs, but who see the position of Head Coach as a lesser position?

Thoughts?

[B.H.F.C]

It’s a job title and that’s it. They will be doing the same thing regardless of what they’re called. Folk think that a ‘manager’ will have more control but in modern football that doesn’t exist.

You can go back to the likes of Lennon and Ross who were appointed as Head Coaches but everyone still called them the Manager.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

When I went to see what would become theactual Invincibles , I attended the away end Highbury with mates - one of whom was the coach for Sheffield Wednesday it was then the difference (as my mate understood it) was explained to me. That the day to day was the coach, drills tectics fitness. He was the real key according to my mate. Less involvement with the manager who would tactics and be the head figure.

so what is it we are getting how are we being setup for success?

[tamig]

It’s a job title and that’s it. They will be doing the same thing regardless of what they’re called. Folk think that a ‘manager’ will have more control but in modern football that doesn’t exist.

You can go back to the likes of Lennon and Ross who were appointed as Head Coaches but everyone still called them the Manager.
Exactly. The old school manager title has kind of run its course at most higher level clubs nowadays due to how footballing departments are structured.

[bingo70]

Does the move to having a head coach instead of a manager mean we are destined to have a tracksuit wearing scruff on the touch line forever more?

Not sure I’m happy with that if so.

[Skol]

I remember a shout once, forget who the manager was.

Yer just a tracksuit manager.

[Paul1642]

Can’t wait for Sega to release Football Head Coach 2025.

[matty_f]

It’s a job title and that’s it. They will be doing the same thing regardless of what they’re called. Folk think that a ‘manager’ will have more control but in modern football that doesn’t exist.

You can go back to the likes of Lennon and Ross who were appointed as Head Coaches but everyone still called them the Manager.

Made a similar point on another thread, in many cases it's just semantics now and a Head Coach or a Manager to much the same thing.

There will be differences club to club but most decent sized professional clubs realise that the old school manager role is impossible to do effectively and so they put a support structure around the first team to support the person who would traditionally have been known as the manager.

I don't think someone wanting to manage a first team at our level would be put off by the title at all. If someone genuinely wanted to come in and run everything then they'd be put off by the structure rather than the job title.

[Winston Ingram]

The thinking that people can do both managing and scouting to an equally high standard is flawed IMO.

How on earth is someone able to Manage a football team and also have a phenomenal understanding of the talent all over the world along with a huge network of contacts?

[Don Giovanni]

In his interview, Malky has emphasised that we wont be offering a Manager role.

The press and a lot of our support appear to be sticking with the term 'Manager'. Is that because they don't understand the difference or because they don't think there's much difference in the level of responsibility?

Are their candidates out there who may have been attracted to that role at Hibs, but who see the position of Head Coach as a lesser position?

Thoughts?

It just confirms my expectations when we appointed McKay in the first place TBH.

An experienced manager isn't going to be keen on defferring to a Sporting Director with the boards ear.

Nor will our newly appointed Sporting Director want a strong-willed manager exerting too much control.

So McKay will run the show from on high and we'll have a less experienced guy in the dugout.

[ancient hibee]

Alex Ferguson was a manager at Manchester-his word was law on anything to do with the football but he did no coaching-he concentrated on the main part of his job-putting the right team on the park.

[Pretty Boy]

Made a similar point on another thread, in many cases it's just semantics now and a Head Coach or a Manager to much the same thing.

There will be differences club to club but most decent sized professional clubs realise that the old school manager role is impossible to do effectively and so they put a support structure around the first team to support the person who would traditionally have been known as the manager.

I don't think someone wanting to manage a first team at our level would be put off by the title at all. If someone genuinely wanted to come in and run everything then they'd be put off by the structure rather than the job title.

:agree:

If someone was put off by the title of Head Coach at Hibs then they are going to be put off pretty much every job in professional football at our level or above because the spec of the job will be broadly the same across the board.

Going back to the mid 90s, maybe even through the early 00s, there was a distinction between a Head Coach and a Manager; the former was often derided by the old school. Nowadays they are all but one and the same. Even someone, using a topical example, like McInnes who is painted as wanting 'total control' has 2 assistants, a Director of Football, a Head of Recruitment and a Medical Director on board. It's nigh on impossible for any club to operate in the modern game, for better or for worse, with the football manager of yesteryear running the show from top to bottom.

[Pretty Boy]

Alex Ferguson was a manager at Manchester-his word was law on anything to do with the football but he did no coaching-he concentrated on the main part of his job-putting the right team on the park.

I think that is a great example of why such a structure doesn't work anymore.

Fergie was always full of praise for his coaches in his books, from Archie Knox through Brian Kidd and on to Carlos Quieroz, and there are very few who doubt his ability in motivation and analysing the game, players etc (his prediction that Aston Villa would have a great season only minutes after they lost 5-1 at the start of this season suggests he's still got it). However when he moved on (along with David Gill) it became blindingly obvious Manchester United weren't set up to be a modern football club. Over a decade on and they still aren't there and a large part of that is because of the control Ferguson had over every aspect of the football department for so many years.

[BH Hibs]

It just confirms my expectations when we appointed McKay in the first place TBH.

An experienced manager isn't going to be keen on defferring to a Sporting Director with the boards ear.

Nor will our newly appointed Sporting Director want a strong-willed manager exerting too much control.

So McKay will run the show from on high and we'll have a less experienced guy in the dugout.

That’s my fear as well that we’re kind of getting MacKay by the back door.

[B.H.F.C]

That’s my fear as well that we’re kind of getting MacKay by the back door.

It’s no really the back door, he’s going to be overseeing much more than if he was Manager or Head Coach or whatever.

[wfortune]

I think that is a great example of why such a structure doesn't work anymore.

Fergie was always full of praise for his coaches in his books, from Archie Knox through Brian Kidd and on to Carlos Quieroz, and there are very few who doubt his ability in motivation and analysing the game, players etc (his prediction that Aston Villa would have a great season only minutes after they lost 5-1 at the start of this season suggests he's still got it). However when he moved on (along with David Gill) it became blindingly obvious Manchester United weren't set up to be a modern football club. Over a decade on and they still aren't there and a large part of that is because of the control Ferguson had over every aspect of the football department for so many years.

All that has happened is the title/ goalposts have moved, Ferguson was the sporting director in all but name with the added responsibility for tactics and being the figurehead.

Modern football is just pushing the responsibility further up the management structure.

[matty_f]

It just confirms my expectations when we appointed McKay in the first place TBH.

An experienced manager isn't going to be keen on defferring to a Sporting Director with the boards ear.

Nor will our newly appointed Sporting Director want a strong-willed manager exerting too much control.

So McKay will run the show from on high and we'll have a less experienced guy in the dugout.

Mackay's remit isn't to set tactics or tell the head coach how to run the team, he's there to ensure the set up around the head coach is as good as it can be, that recruitment delivers good enough players, that the coaches are a good enough standard, that the training ground has the right equipment, the youth team feeds into the first team effectively etc

[Heisenberg]

It just confirms my expectations when we appointed McKay in the first place TBH.

An experienced manager isn't going to be keen on defferring to a Sporting Director with the boards ear.

Nor will our newly appointed Sporting Director want a strong-willed manager exerting too much control.

So McKay will run the show from on high and we'll have a less experienced guy in the dugout.

We won the Scottish cup and built the best team we’ve had for a very long time using the same model. Hopefully works just as well this time around.

[Pretty Boy]

We won the Scottish cup and built the best team we’ve had for a very long time using the same model. Hopefully works just as well this time around.

:top marks

The question isn't why we are switching to such a model but rather why we abandoned it in the first place.

I argued from the very start that removing the Director of Football position (particularly with a total rookie heading up recruitment) and placing added football responsibility on the CEO and manager was madness. Thankfully the club seem to agree and are taking steps to start addressing the multitude of issues it has caused in the interim period.

[Jones28]

:top marks

The question isn't why we are switching to such a model but rather why we abandoned it in the first place.

I argued from the very start that removing the Director of Football position (particularly with a total rookie heading up recruitment) and placing added football responsibility on the CEO and manager was madness. Thankfully the club seem to agree and are taking steps to start addressing the multitude of issues it has caused in the interim period.

:agree:

Every since we sacked Mathie (replaced by Ian Gordon effectively?) and didnt replace George Craig (I don't think we did anyway - happy to be corrected on that) the footballing department has fallen to *****.

Quite maddening in retrospect that the Gordons felt the need to tear up a system that was, for the most part, working.

[matty_f]

:top marks

The question isn't why we are switching to such a model but rather why we abandoned it in the first place.

I argued from the very start that removing the Director of Football position (particularly with a total rookie heading up recruitment) and placing added football responsibility on the CEO and manager was madness. Thankfully the club seem to agree and are taking steps to start addressing the multitude of issues it has caused in the interim period.
It was a monumentally bad decision.

[J-C]

:agree:

Every since we sacked Mathie (replaced by Ian Gordon effectively?) and didnt replace George Craig (I don't think we did anyway - happy to be corrected on that) the footballing department has fallen to *****.

Quite maddening in retrospect that the Gordons felt the need to tear up a system that was, for the most part, working.
Mathie and his scouts found the players, Craig sold the club to them and Dempster got them signed, it worked very well till Craig retired and Dempster moved on. Mathie struggled to do it all himself and I think fell out with Ross over the non sale of Doig.

[Hibees1973]

:agree:

Every since we sacked Mathie (replaced by Ian Gordon effectively?) and didnt replace George Craig (I don't think we did anyway - happy to be corrected on that) the footballing department has fallen to *****.

Quite maddening in retrospect that the Gordons felt the need to tear up a system that was, for the most part, working.

You're obsessed. :greengrin Don't blame Ian Gordon. He bears absolutely no responsibiity for the mess we are in.

Some on here won't hear a word against him.

[TrinityHFC]

:agree:

Every since we sacked Mathie (replaced by Ian Gordon effectively?) and didnt replace George Craig (I don't think we did anyway - happy to be corrected on that) the footballing department has fallen to *****.

Quite maddening in retrospect that the Gordons felt the need to tear up a system that was, for the most part, working.

Things weren’t amazing back then either. I think most things are in place to push on. They just haven’t got the coaching team appointments consistently right.

Mathie, Craig etc signed some good players. They also signed a lot of crap. We were a David Gray header away from being in deep, deep trouble as a club.

[InvertedFullBak]

You're obsessed. :greengrin Don't blame Ian Gordon. He bears absolutely no responsibiity for the mess we are in.

Some on here won't hear a word against him.

Don’t blame Ian Gordon? You’ve got to be kidding ?

he was the one who went on a real life football manager signing spree singing projects from all over the world when the remit was to try and find the best young talent from Scotland primarily.

[ian cruise]

It's easy to criticise the approach to signing players like Melkerson now we know it didn't work as hoped, but it's an approach that many sports teams have used to great effect. Had it worked we'd potentially have a new golden generation.

I don't blame them for trying it, but the foolishness lies with coming in and immediately trying it rather than a season or so of planning the implementation of the approach and in the mean time solidifying the structure around the club then pulling the trigger.

[matty_f]

It's easy to criticise the approach to signing players like Melkerson now we know it didn't work as hoped, but it's an approach that many sports teams have used to great effect. Had it worked we'd potentially have a new golden generation.

I don't blame them for trying it, but the foolishness lies with coming in and immediately trying it rather than a season or so of planning the implementation of the approach and in the mean time solidifying the structure around the club then pulling the trigger.

The strategy is sound, the execution was horrendous.

[Smartie]

The strategy is sound, the execution was horrendous.

The strategy was quite high risk though.

In fact, I’d argue that buying a bunch of development players without any real way for them to play regular football together was fundamentally flawed.

We’ve ended up with a raft of players who take up budget and are a bit short (not miles short but short nonetheless) of being of the required standard to play a big part for our first team.

If you were a betting man you’d probably have bet on it turning out exactly this way - therefore is it really that sound a strategy? It feels a bit daft to say we just needed to sign better players than we did, which whilst true, isn’t really all that easy.

[matty_f]

The strategy was quite high risk though.

In fact, I’d argue that buying a bunch of development players without any real way for them to play regular football together was fundamentally flawed.

We’ve ended up with a raft of players who take up budget and are a bit short (not miles short but short nonetheless) of being of the required standard to play a big part for our first team.

If you were a betting man you’d probably have bet on it turning out exactly this way - therefore is it really that sound a strategy? It feels a bit daft to say we just needed to sign better players than we did, which whilst true, isn’t really all that easy.

That was down to the execution, imho. To do it all at once, with an inexperienced and unqualified head of recruitment without paying proper attention to the needs of the first team's here and now issues was high risk.

So it's not just that we needed to sign better development players (we did need to), we also didn't think through how or where to play them, we didn't have a clear path to the first team for the development players, we had this mix-messaging of which players were development and which were first team (Melkersen was a first team player despite being younger than some of the development team), we had poorly thought it partnerships with lower league clubs so the loan deals didn't work as they should...

There are loads of reasons over and above signing better players why it didn't work, we made it high risk because the practicalities weren't thought through and we rushed into it.

The strategy of investing in emerging talent and giving them a way to develop into first team players isn't that risky if it's done well. They should be inexpensive signings, and if you do it well the return is fantastic.


We messed it up and instead of learning from what we did wrong, we pivoted to another strategy altogether.

[chrisski33]

Things weren’t amazing back then either. I think most things are in place to push on. They just haven’t got the coaching team appointments consistently right.

Mathie, Craig etc signed some good players. They also signed a lot of crap. We were a David Gray header away from being in deep, deep trouble as a club.

I think at the time Mathie, Craig and co got pelters for not doing a good job now some say its got worse since they left. Can't win

[Viva_Palmeiras]

I think at the time Mathie, Craig and co got pelters for not doing a good job now some say its got worse since they left. Can't win

wonder how much of Mathies grief was due to lack of funds? Banked too much on getting funds from Doig that never materialised he did make a bit of a rod for his own back these don’t thing Craigs
record Wes blemished tho?

[J-C]

The strategy was quite high risk though.

In fact, I’d argue that buying a bunch of development players without any real way for them to play regular football together was fundamentally flawed.

We’ve ended up with a raft of players who take up budget and are a bit short (not miles short but short nonetheless) of being of the required standard to play a big part for our first team.

If you were a betting man you’d probably have bet on it turning out exactly this way - therefore is it really that sound a strategy? It feels a bit daft to say we just needed to sign better players than we did, which whilst true, isn’t really all that easy.

Nothing wrong with the odd punt, we've done it plenty over the years, some work some don't but you cannot have you're whole strategy like that. We needed a good solid spine to the team added with the odd punt, squad player and youth players.

[LaMotta]

Think the Fink link stinks.

:hilarious

[bingo70]

Think the Fink link stinks.

I agree the Fink link stinks, another option is Will Still but will Will Still still want to coach after his sacking?

[Silky]

I agree the Fink link stinks, another option is Will Still but will Will Still still want to coach after his sacking?

Still has been heavily linked with Sunderland, I've seen. I think he'll end up there.

Ten Haag will be out-of a job soon! 🤣🤣

[Smartie]

Still has been heavily linked with Sunderland, I've seen. I think he'll end up there.

Ten Haag will be out-of a job soon! 🤣🤣

I think Sunderland and Norwich are fighting over Still at the moment.

[Scouse Hibee]

It’s a job title and that’s it. They will be doing the same thing regardless of what they’re called. Folk think that a ‘manager’ will have more control but in modern football that doesn’t exist.

You can go back to the likes of Lennon and Ross who were appointed as Head Coaches but everyone still called them the Manager.

It certainly does exist, Jurgen Klopp was the Liverpool manager, he insisted on having control and it caused divides and certain people left Liverpool. Now Slot is the new Head Coach and some of the heirachy the left are now back at Liverpool. They have just been talking about it on Football Focus in regard to Pep too.

[Dmas]

It certainly does exist, Jurgen Klopp was the Liverpool manager, he insisted on having control and it caused divides and certain people left Liverpool. Now Slot is the new Head Coach and some of the heirachy the left are now back at Liverpool. They have just been talking about it on Football Focus in regard to Pep too.

Monty was head coach, he most definitely signed Triantis, the new guy won’t just be spoon fed players to train and set up in a team he’ll have a voice in the discussion

[RIP]

Mathie and his scouts found the players, Craig sold the club to them and Dempster got them signed, it worked very well till Craig retired and Dempster moved on.

Mathie struggled to do it all himself and I think fell out with Ross over the non sale of Doig.

Dempster's role in closing deals was never understood by Ben Kensell. Mathie was hung out to dry for the Scotty Allan player-swap gone wrong cos he couldnt be in 2 signing locations at once. In past seasons Leeann would have shared contract closure tasks with Graeme.

Mathie was left do do it all on his own. His departure has been a big loss and recruitment has been calamitous ever since. As many commentators have stated this season, the structure above the Head Coach has been the main problem