Soccernomics and how it applies to fulham

[eloc]

I'm new, so if this comes off as condescension , I apologize.
If you haven't read the book soccernomics, do so now. It will blow your mind. Firstly, a brief summary of the book: MONEYBALL, BUT SOCCER.

Now, I don't know how much of these ideas Fulham have already in place, but it would seem that we tend to ignore some of the key tennets. We overpay for older players, and we tend to focus on big name players rather than those who actually work for the team. Secondly we hold onto players far past their prime (looking at you Riise).As we lack the budget to compete with the big clubs, we need to play smarter. We cant afford to bring in Bale and Ronaldo, but we can attempt to find people who could turn into it. We need to stop looking at players younger than 20. They have not finished developing physically, nor emotionally, and mentally. A PERFECT example of a player who was overhyped at an early age is Freddy Adu. Heck, go look at the golden ball winners of the last 4 u-17 world cups. One player (toni kroos) is world class, but he's bench warming for Bayern. Look at the u-20 and see the difference between the players who were deemed the best in the world at that age and see which ones carried that ability forward. Sure aguero messi and maybe pogba( he's too young for me to make a decision on) stand out, but what about the rest? nada. nothing. these kids are way to erratic to be spending money on, and they aren't even fully developed.
By spending more time looking at and having players who we can see their career arc more clearly we have less risk than a player who is unpolished. Instead of buying players(like Berbatov,) or loaning players (like bent) based on their past performances, we need to start looking at players who are gaining. To put it in economic terms, you don't buy stock that's dropped hoping it will come back to its previous high. You buy stocks on the basis that it will improve and you can then sell it for a profit, and reinvest.

Secondly, statistically managers don't matter. Literally, we would do just as well, or better if we sent every member of the club a sheet and had them set the line up. Look at fantasy football, in both American football and football. It's not that hard to be a good coach. However, if we do get a coach, FIND ONE WHO IS GOOD. And for the love of god, not a former player. There is no correlation between the two. Heck, hire a black woman, they've got as much statistical impact as someone like Jol or Rodgers. If we higher a new manager, make it someone who has shown to have a statistical impact. There's a couple of coaches in the lower leagues who have remarkable records for terrible teams. Finally, Khan needs to realize that this club is not a business. No sporting club ever is. Even mighty Real Madrid which is worth 3 Billion USD doesnt even register on the Financial Times 500 global list ( the lowsest is worth 19 billion USD).

Also, Soccer clubs have high moral hazard. No matter what football clubs survive. For example, look at Portsmouth. They went bankrupt and into administration. They ran out of money to pay their players, and they even said that it was likely the club would be closed for good. Yet a group of fans came in and purchased the grounds, and eventually the team. No business survives like that. In 1923 the English Football league had 88 teams spread over 4 divisions. In 2007-2008 85 of these same clubs still existed. They made it through the great depression, WWII, the thatcher recession, and countless financial hardship. Now look at businesses from the same time period. Heck look at the companies that made up the DJIA in 1923 and today. who is still there? For khan to believe fulham can be run like a business is foolish.

[BedsFFC]

Some post, for your first one.

I think your description of FFC is correct but it is the FFC of Jol, which, for many reasons was so flawed.

I think in Dembele, we hit the nail on the head about as good as we ever will.

I'm interested in how the stats were worked out to say that mgr's don't matter. You then mention coaches. Are you distinguishing between coaches and managers?

[alfie]

I'm new, so if this comes off as condescension , I apologize.
If you haven't read the book soccernomics, do so now. It will blow your mind. Firstly, a brief summary of the book: MONEYBALL, BUT SOCCER.

Now, I don't know how much of these ideas Fulham have already in place, but it would seem that we tend to ignore some of the key tennets. We overpay for older players, and we tend to focus on big name players rather than those who actually work for the team. Secondly we hold onto players far past their prime (looking at you Riise).As we lack the budget to compete with the big clubs, we need to play smarter. We cant afford to bring in Bale and Ronaldo, but we can attempt to find people who could turn into it. We need to stop looking at players younger than 20. They have not finished developing physically, nor emotionally, and mentally. A PERFECT example of a player who was overhyped at an early age is Freddy Adu. Heck, go look at the golden ball winners of the last 4 u-17 world cups. One player (toni kroos) is world class, but he's bench warming for Bayern. Look at the u-20 and see the difference between the players who were deemed the best in the world at that age and see which ones carried that ability forward. Sure aguero messi and maybe pogba( he's too young for me to make a decision on) stand out, but what about the rest? nada. nothing. these kids are way to erratic to be spending money on, and they aren't even fully developed.
By spending more time looking at and having players who we can see their career arc more clearly we have less risk than a player who is unpolished. Instead of buying players(like Berbatov,) or loaning players (like bent) based on their past performances, we need to start looking at players who are gaining. To put it in economic terms, you don't buy stock that's dropped hoping it will come back to its previous high. You buy stocks on the basis that it will improve and you can then sell it for a profit, and reinvest.

Secondly, statistically managers don't matter. Literally, we would do just as well, or better if we sent every member of the club a sheet and had them set the line up. Look at fantasy football, in both American football and football. It's not that hard to be a good coach. However, if we do get a coach, FIND ONE WHO IS GOOD. And for the love of god, not a former player. There is no correlation between the two. Heck, hire a black woman, they've got as much statistical impact as someone like Jol or Rodgers. If we higher a new manager, make it someone who has shown to have a statistical impact. There's a couple of coaches in the lower leagues who have remarkable records for terrible teams. Finally, Khan needs to realize that this club is not a business. No sporting club ever is. Even mighty Real Madrid which is worth 3 Billion USD doesnt even register on the Financial Times 500 global list ( the lowsest is worth 19 billion USD).

Also, Soccer clubs have high moral hazard. No matter what football clubs survive. For example, look at Portsmouth. They went bankrupt and into administration. They ran out of money to pay their players, and they even said that it was likely the club would be closed for good. Yet a group of fans came in and purchased the grounds, and eventually the team. No business survives like that. In 1923 the English Football league had 88 teams spread over 4 divisions. In 2007-2008 85 of these same clubs still existed. They made it through the great depression, WWII, the thatcher recession, and countless financial hardship. Now look at businesses from the same time period. Heck look at the companies that made up the DJIA in 1923 and today. who is still there? For khan to believe fulham can be run like a business is foolish.

I don't know why you needed to make the comment "looking at you Riise" it's not his fault, it is his job/career, he has a contract, he plays because he is selected to play, he does not write his name on the team sheet, if a club does not come in with an offer for him then he goes nowhere, until his contract ends.

[Drake44444]

Good post and good points.  I had never thought about the u-20 u-17 risks, but it makes sense.  Invest in slightly older players but still young.

[eloc]

Some post, for your first one.

I think your description of FFC is correct but it is the FFC of Jol, which, for many reasons was so flawed.

I think in Dembele, we hit the nail on the head about as good as we ever will.

I'm interested in how the stats were worked out to say that mgr's don't matter. You then mention coaches. Are you distinguishing between coaches and managers?

sorry for the wording confusion, i am speaking of whoever is setting the line ups and such. people like wenger, RM, Jol, SAF and the like. its in the book, and id post a link to an online copy, but im not sure if it violates the rules. basically the stats about managers impact say that unless the manager is exceptionally good (pep, SAF, Mou) you would be better off giving the season ticket holders a sheet and picking the most 11 popular names to start.

[eloc]

I'm new, so if this comes off as condescension , I apologize.
If you haven't read the book soccernomics, do so now. It will blow your mind. Firstly, a brief summary of the book: MONEYBALL, BUT SOCCER.

Now, I don't know how much of these ideas Fulham have already in place, but it would seem that we tend to ignore some of the key tennets. We overpay for older players, and we tend to focus on big name players rather than those who actually work for the team. Secondly we hold onto players far past their prime (looking at you Riise).As we lack the budget to compete with the big clubs, we need to play smarter. We cant afford to bring in Bale and Ronaldo, but we can attempt to find people who could turn into it. We need to stop looking at players younger than 20. They have not finished developing physically, nor emotionally, and mentally. A PERFECT example of a player who was overhyped at an early age is Freddy Adu. Heck, go look at the golden ball winners of the last 4 u-17 world cups. One player (toni kroos) is world class, but he's bench warming for Bayern. Look at the u-20 and see the difference between the players who were deemed the best in the world at that age and see which ones carried that ability forward. Sure aguero messi and maybe pogba( he's too young for me to make a decision on) stand out, but what about the rest? nada. nothing. these kids are way to erratic to be spending money on, and they aren't even fully developed.
By spending more time looking at and having players who we can see their career arc more clearly we have less risk than a player who is unpolished. Instead of buying players(like Berbatov,) or loaning players (like bent) based on their past performances, we need to start looking at players who are gaining. To put it in economic terms, you don't buy stock that's dropped hoping it will come back to its previous high. You buy stocks on the basis that it will improve and you can then sell it for a profit, and reinvest.

Secondly, statistically managers don't matter. Literally, we would do just as well, or better if we sent every member of the club a sheet and had them set the line up. Look at fantasy football, in both American football and football. It's not that hard to be a good coach. However, if we do get a coach, FIND ONE WHO IS GOOD. And for the love of god, not a former player. There is no correlation between the two. Heck, hire a black woman, they've got as much statistical impact as someone like Jol or Rodgers. If we higher a new manager, make it someone who has shown to have a statistical impact. There's a couple of coaches in the lower leagues who have remarkable records for terrible teams. Finally, Khan needs to realize that this club is not a business. No sporting club ever is. Even mighty Real Madrid which is worth 3 Billion USD doesnt even register on the Financial Times 500 global list ( the lowsest is worth 19 billion USD).

Also, Soccer clubs have high moral hazard. No matter what football clubs survive. For example, look at Portsmouth. They went bankrupt and into administration. They ran out of money to pay their players, and they even said that it was likely the club would be closed for good. Yet a group of fans came in and purchased the grounds, and eventually the team. No business survives like that. In 1923 the English Football league had 88 teams spread over 4 divisions. In 2007-2008 85 of these same clubs still existed. They made it through the great depression, WWII, the thatcher recession, and countless financial hardship. Now look at businesses from the same time period. Heck look at the companies that made up the DJIA in 1923 and today. who is still there? For khan to believe fulham can be run like a business is foolish.

I don't know why you needed to make the comment "looking at you Riise" it's not his fault, it is his job/career, he has a contract, he plays because he is selected to play, he does not write his name on the team sheet, if a club does not come in with an offer for him then he goes nowhere, until his contract ends.

in terms of riise, im speaking of ever bringing him here in the first place. we brought in a player who was past his prime, and expected top tier performance. its what happened with berbs. we are gambling on a player who has been good, hoping that he still has some in the tank. rather we should be spending money on players who have proven some ability but havent yet peaked. then we can sell them and reinvest in the squad

[eloc]

Good post and good points.  I had never thought about the u-20 u-17 risks, but it makes sense.  Invest in slightly older players but still young.

my point exactly. how many times has a kid been dubbed "the next pele/messi/maradona/rooney" and 5 years later he is no where near as good?

[alfie]

I'm new, so if this comes off as condescension , I apologize.
If you haven't read the book soccernomics, do so now. It will blow your mind. Firstly, a brief summary of the book: MONEYBALL, BUT SOCCER.

Now, I don't know how much of these ideas Fulham have already in place, but it would seem that we tend to ignore some of the key tennets. We overpay for older players, and we tend to focus on big name players rather than those who actually work for the team. Secondly we hold onto players far past their prime (looking at you Riise).As we lack the budget to compete with the big clubs, we need to play smarter. We cant afford to bring in Bale and Ronaldo, but we can attempt to find people who could turn into it. We need to stop looking at players younger than 20. They have not finished developing physically, nor emotionally, and mentally. A PERFECT example of a player who was overhyped at an early age is Freddy Adu. Heck, go look at the golden ball winners of the last 4 u-17 world cups. One player (toni kroos) is world class, but he's bench warming for Bayern. Look at the u-20 and see the difference between the players who were deemed the best in the world at that age and see which ones carried that ability forward. Sure aguero messi and maybe pogba( he's too young for me to make a decision on) stand out, but what about the rest? nada. nothing. these kids are way to erratic to be spending money on, and they aren't even fully developed.
By spending more time looking at and having players who we can see their career arc more clearly we have less risk than a player who is unpolished. Instead of buying players(like Berbatov,) or loaning players (like bent) based on their past performances, we need to start looking at players who are gaining. To put it in economic terms, you don't buy stock that's dropped hoping it will come back to its previous high. You buy stocks on the basis that it will improve and you can then sell it for a profit, and reinvest.

Secondly, statistically managers don't matter. Literally, we would do just as well, or better if we sent every member of the club a sheet and had them set the line up. Look at fantasy football, in both American football and football. It's not that hard to be a good coach. However, if we do get a coach, FIND ONE WHO IS GOOD. And for the love of god, not a former player. There is no correlation between the two. Heck, hire a black woman, they've got as much statistical impact as someone like Jol or Rodgers. If we higher a new manager, make it someone who has shown to have a statistical impact. There's a couple of coaches in the lower leagues who have remarkable records for terrible teams. Finally, Khan needs to realize that this club is not a business. No sporting club ever is. Even mighty Real Madrid which is worth 3 Billion USD doesnt even register on the Financial Times 500 global list ( the lowsest is worth 19 billion USD).

Also, Soccer clubs have high moral hazard. No matter what football clubs survive. For example, look at Portsmouth. They went bankrupt and into administration. They ran out of money to pay their players, and they even said that it was likely the club would be closed for good. Yet a group of fans came in and purchased the grounds, and eventually the team. No business survives like that. In 1923 the English Football league had 88 teams spread over 4 divisions. In 2007-2008 85 of these same clubs still existed. They made it through the great depression, WWII, the thatcher recession, and countless financial hardship. Now look at businesses from the same time period. Heck look at the companies that made up the DJIA in 1923 and today. who is still there? For khan to believe fulham can be run like a business is foolish.

I don't know why you needed to make the comment "looking at you Riise" it's not his fault, it is his job/career, he has a contract, he plays because he is selected to play, he does not write his name on the team sheet, if a club does not come in with an offer for him then he goes nowhere, until his contract ends.

in terms of riise, im speaking of ever bringing him here in the first place. we brought in a player who was past his prime, and expected top tier performance. its what happened with berbs. we are gambling on a player who has been good, hoping that he still has some in the tank. rather we should be spending money on players who have proven some ability but havent yet peaked. then we can sell them and reinvest in the squad

OK i understand but you actually said "Secondly we hold on to players far past their prime (looking at you Riise)"

[GloucesterWhite]

According to those guidelines we should not have bought Smalling, Burn, or Murphy to name just three.

[b+w geezer]

It's good have an airing for the last of the three points, which you'd like to imagine is appreciated by Khan.

The first point overstates, as there will always be many exceptions, such as the three just mentioned. But as a broad truth, there is something in it.

I am sceptical of the second point, at any rate if you substitute `coach' for `manager.' What happens on the training pitch can make a massive difference. Anyone who has watched Fulham over the period can vouch for the fact that the best times invariably coincided with good coaching in place -- Dave Sexton  (the 1966 Great Escape), Bill Taylor (FA Cup Final), Ray Harford (MacDonald's fine team), Damiano (Tigana's fine team) and of course Roy Hodgson. He was admittedly the only one called `Manager.' Except for the Tigana era it certainly wasn't money that made the difference from surrounding dross seasons -- so unless just pure coincidence, it was the work of these guys. That they all did well at other clubs too tends to confirm it.

[The Equalizer]

Welcome aboard Eloc! That's one heck of a good first post to kick it off to!

This is actually a really interesting subject, and I would absolutely love to have that 'stats over name' model come to football, but the question is whether it could work. I've seen Moneyball, but I've not read Soccernomics. The model for the baseball was a real gamble, but it's incredible how many teams started to adopt it later.

It would definitely be an interesting test to see if it could work in football. It'll probably be worth us adopting it if we end up playing Brentford next season.

[deeffc]

You can't overlook the fact though that buying a player who is proven but still young is next to impossible for a club like Fulham. Just looking around the league names that would jump out are Shaw, Barkley, Morrison even someone the like of Shelvey, any of those barring a contract expiring or such is going to cost probably around £10million and if the player is any less proven then you're starting to go much more back into the gamble territory like a Berahino or maybe Wisdom at Liverpool, Nathan Redmond who all look good now but so did plenty of others like Jeffers and Bentley. It much, much better economically to sign 10, 16-18 year olds for a few hundred thousand euros each to add to your home grown talent than spend £5,6,7,8 million on one 20-23 year old because it only takes one or two gems like a Smalling to develop and you have a huge margin for profit and much less risk.

I'm not saying there's nothing in the research, it makes sense, but in terms of what's practical for clubs with very tight profit margins and without the American style wealth distribution it is far too big a risk to wait and sign developed players consistently. Another difference that comes to mind is the nature of Baseball. The skillset in Baseball is mostly closed, you stand still wait for the ball and hit it. Of course the batter and pitcher change but there are no other big variables in terms of tactics or movement. Football like a sport like baseball is all about the movement and system. In the case of football fitting in correctly is much more important to success so I don't think you can as easily compare and use statistics.

I think it's quite clear that managers do make a difference. Look at Old Trafford and look at Fulham pre and post Hodgson.

[Pev]

For this mindset to be implemented into a football club there must be complete cohesion between the chairman, the manager, the coaching staff, the players and the fans - and unfortunately the state of the premier league makes this extremely difficult to implement for clubs. Some chairmen invest much of their finance into a club, so it is easy to see that a 'long term project' (such as what Southampton implemented a few years back) may not be so appealing.

There is so much chop and change now that the game only allows established managers to apply their 'soccernomics' initiative to the team.  For me only four managers could do this:

Arsene Wenger
Mauricio Pochettino
Manuel Pelligrini
Roberto Martinez

I can only ever think of one man who was ever in this position with Fulham - Roy. Maybe if he stayed a bit longer more would have been invested in the future of Fulham but in hindsight it really was what killed our club, as MAF would have certainly been an advocate of our own 'long term plan'.

[TonyGilroy]

Hodgson did a wonderful job for us but in a long career he never stayed anywhere for more than two or three years.

He's always been about the now not the future. He brought through no youngsters and took in quite a few loanees.

[eloc]

It's good have an airing for the last of the three points, which you'd like to imagine is appreciated by Khan.

The first point overstates, as there will always be many exceptions, such as the three just mentioned. But as a broad truth, there is something in it.

I am sceptical of the second point, at any rate if you substitute `coach' for `manager.' What happens on the training pitch can make a massive difference. Anyone who has watched Fulham over the period can vouch for the fact that the best times invariably coincided with good coaching in place -- Dave Sexton  (the 1966 Great Escape), Bill Taylor (FA Cup Final), Ray Harford (MacDonald's fine team), Damiano (Tigana's fine team) and of course Roy Hodgson. He was admittedly the only one called `Manager.' Except for the Tigana era it certainly wasn't money that made the difference from surrounding dross seasons -- so unless just pure coincidence, it was the work of these guys. That they all did well at other clubs too tends to confirm it.

sorry for the extremely late reply. your examples of managers illustrate my point however. those men are of  very very small portion of the total number of managers. i agree the man running the training session can make all the difference, but those kinds of managers are few and far between

[b+w geezer]

It's good have an airing for the last of the three points, which you'd like to imagine is appreciated by Khan.

The first point overstates, as there will always be many exceptions, such as the three just mentioned. But as a broad truth, there is something in it.

I am sceptical of the second point, at any rate if you substitute `coach' for `manager.' What happens on the training pitch can make a massive difference. Anyone who has watched Fulham over the period can vouch for the fact that the best times invariably coincided with good coaching in place -- Dave Sexton  (the 1966 Great Escape), Bill Taylor (FA Cup Final), Ray Harford (MacDonald's fine team), Damiano (Tigana's fine team) and of course Roy Hodgson. He was admittedly the only one called `Manager.' Except for the Tigana era it certainly wasn't money that made the difference from surrounding dross seasons -- so unless just pure coincidence, it was the work of these guys. That they all did well at other clubs too tends to confirm it.

sorry for the extremely late reply. your examples of managers illustrate my point however. those men are of  very very small portion of the total number of managers. i agree the man running the training session can make all the difference, but those kinds of managers are few and far between

I'll respond a bit more quickly! Yes, they were all out the ordinary, but on the other hand we have had them for 20-25% or so of our time over the past half century, and those times were the good ones. So as a differentiator between the good and the bad times, these people do fit the description, and they do contradict the notion that you or I, or a random member of the public, would have done as well. If that is indeed what the book says then, unlike the other two main points you report, it's a highly dubious one.

[eloc]

It's good have an airing for the last of the three points, which you'd like to imagine is appreciated by Khan.

The first point overstates, as there will always be many exceptions, such as the three just mentioned. But as a broad truth, there is something in it.

I am sceptical of the second point, at any rate if you substitute `coach' for `manager.' What happens on the training pitch can make a massive difference. Anyone who has watched Fulham over the period can vouch for the fact that the best times invariably coincided with good coaching in place -- Dave Sexton  (the 1966 Great Escape), Bill Taylor (FA Cup Final), Ray Harford (MacDonald's fine team), Damiano (Tigana's fine team) and of course Roy Hodgson. He was admittedly the only one called `Manager.' Except for the Tigana era it certainly wasn't money that made the difference from surrounding dross seasons -- so unless just pure coincidence, it was the work of these guys. That they all did well at other clubs too tends to confirm it.

sorry for the extremely late reply. your examples of managers illustrate my point however. those men are of  very very small portion of the total number of managers. i agree the man running the training session can make all the difference, but those kinds of managers are few and far between

I'll respond a bit more quickly! Yes, they were all out the ordinary, but on the other hand we have had them for 20-25% or so of our time over the past half century, and those times were the good ones. So as a differentiator between the good and the bad times, these people do fit the description, and they do contradict the notion that you or I, or a random member of the public, would have done as well. If that is indeed what the book says then, unlike the other two main points you report, it's a highly dubious one.

fulham is one club out of many, and like you said they only represent 20-25% of the clubs history. its not you or i individually that the book and i am talking about, its the collective idea that is as good as or better than any other manager, save the few exceptions

[eloc]

You can't overlook the fact though that buying a player who is proven but still young is next to impossible for a club like Fulham. Just looking around the league names that would jump out are Shaw, Barkley, Morrison even someone the like of Shelvey, any of those barring a contract expiring or such is going to cost probably around £10million and if the player is any less proven then you're starting to go much more back into the gamble territory like a Berahino or maybe Wisdom at Liverpool, Nathan Redmond who all look good now but so did plenty of others like Jeffers and Bentley. It much, much better economically to sign 10, 16-18 year olds for a few hundred thousand euros each to add to your home grown talent than spend £5,6,7,8 million on one 20-23 year old because it only takes one or two gems like a Smalling to develop and you have a huge margin for profit and much less risk.

I'm not saying there's nothing in the research, it makes sense, but in terms of what's practical for clubs with very tight profit margins and without the American style wealth distribution it is far too big a risk to wait and sign developed players consistently. Another difference that comes to mind is the nature of Baseball. The skillset in Baseball is mostly closed, you stand still wait for the ball and hit it. Of course the batter and pitcher change but there are no other big variables in terms of tactics or movement. Football like a sport like baseball is all about the movement and system. In the case of football fitting in correctly is much more important to success so I don't think you can as easily compare and use statistics.

I think it's quite clear that managers do make a difference. Look at Old Trafford and look at Fulham pre and post Hodgson.

If baseball is a closed skill, static sport, then football is just 22 men running around on a pitch chasing a ball. there are huge variables in baseball, just like in soccer. you alter your defensive stance(shifting basemen and outfielders left/right/closer/deeper) depending on the batter, and the situation. just like in football, you adjust and shift your team to your opponent, based upon who has the ball, and the situation.  barkley and shaw are very young (20 and 18 respectively). their bodies and minds are still growing. Once again its another cherry picking situation. How many other kids have gone through the academies with those same kids and look where they stand. we cant even name them( or at least i cant) they represent a minuscule fraction of the total players southampton and everton put through their academies. bringing in young players is a lot like prospecting for oil. you drill hundreds of wells in the hopes of striking it rich. only problem is, you dont know which well is the one, or how long it will take you to find it. same thing with young players. Having one good player can make you a lot of money and cover the costs of the other failed players, but their is never any guarantee that it will happen with regularity. For every gem, there are tens of thousands of duds.

[YoungsBitter]

I think the overall stats on a long run across a vast amount of clubs would show little impact by the manager. Not really surprising as the game is (happily) still run like a collection of clubs rather than real businesses, its hardly full of trained business professionals and the examples of local business owners taking over the board rooms and making total cock-ups is endless (Richards at Sheff Wed being a classic). In fact its run in the main by professional footballers who have spent their formative years on the field and you are lucky if they transition to actually be a trained FIFA coach let alone have any commercial nouse - I mean seriously, listen to them being interviewed week in, week out - how many would you let run a car wash let alone a multi million pound business? There is a transition happening where the money is now too high stakes and the business owners like Khan will have an impact by selecting people who can manage the various inputs: player talent, training and development of skills, development of tactics, match day dynamics ( selection, adjustment of tactics, subs), income, promotion, fan development and retention, ancillary revenue (stores, hospitality, sponsors), staff management and development...the list goes on. They will select teams of executives who will include former players but the days when SAF controls everything are gone.
The former players who are smart and develop themselves will prosper while those that don't will not and the role of the non former player football industry professionals will increase.
On a more micro level I think the b+w geezer points about the training field are spot on. Teams even in the premiership with all the money that is at stake do not train dramatically different than teams in the 2nd division. Jol's regime was marked by the piss-poor training. It never ceases to amaze me that some teams just do not do situational drills - Mourinho does, Hodgson did - its still skills, cones and corners at most training grounds each week and I wonder at Motspur whose great idea the short corners were....

[Moussa Dembele the 3rd]

Great post eloc