bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Manager or head coach model? Ancelotti might not be on to a loser at Chelsea

This weekend, Carlo Ancelotti compared his role at Chelsea to that of Ferguson at Man Utd, claiming his role was technical only: he is not the ‘manager’. This has helped kick-start the debate we love so much: should all power be placed in the hands of the manager, or can a more ‘continental’ approach do the job?

In England, the idea of a ‘head coach’ (rather than a manager) system tends to be viewed in the same terms as ditching sterling for the Euro, drinking tea without milk or wearing a hat indoors: unpalatable. Fans, the media and indeed managers in the game tend to cling onto the idea of the traditional English football manager – someone who has ultimate control at the club, from training sessions and nutrition regimes through to player wages and transfers.

Talk on Chelsea chat forums in response to Ancelotti’s comments bears this out: never is anger directed at Abramovich (the man solely responsible for Chelsea moving into the upper echelons of world football) as much as when it is perceived that he has ‘interfered’.

The continuing success of Alex Ferguson, of course, helps to perpetuate the idea that his is the ideal model for achieving success in football. Ferguson, we’re told, has his fingers in all the pies at Man Utd, and has succeeded for twenty years. Surely this is the only recipe for success? Some pundits would have us believe it.

This model has of course worked at other clubs, and certainly still practiced (most commonly at smaller teams). It has worked in other sports too: Clive Woodward, for example, was massively hands-on during his time with the England rugby team, micro-managing every conceivable aspect of squad life.

In contrast, the model of management seen typically as continental European, where the manager’s role is more akin to being a head coach and other figures have a greater influence on club finance and transfer policy, is viewed with deep suspicion and distrust on this side of the channel. As foreign influences on the Premier League – predominantly in the form of owners from overseas – have grown over the last decade, the ‘Director of Football’ has become the focal point for the almost xenophobic assumption that draining of power away from the manager is always a destructive thing.

Looking at this rationally however, the old-school British idea of the god-like football manager is surely well past its sell by date. This is an idea that dates back way past the establishment of the Premier League, when football was an altogether different business. Before the explosion of football in the 80s and 90s, squads were half the size and players were paid £200 a month. It certainly wasn’t an ‘international’ game in the same way, and wasn’t nearly so commercialised.

Against that backdrop, it was far more plausible – and sensible – that one manager co-ordinated everything at a club. The best managers were tacticians and motivators, but were also organisers, pulling together plans for everything from formations to away fixture travel arrangements.

Now, Premier League football teams are commercially geared, multi-national organisations with multi-million pound turnovers. They have squads at every age group and draw on the talents of hundreds of employees. The stakes, too, are much higher: arguably lack of success on the pitch has never come at such a high price in the history of the game.

With all that in mind, having one all-knowing manager co-ordinate all aspects of a club’s activity isn’t really credible or sustainable. The so-called continental model of having a Director of Football figure acting as a make-weight between the ‘manager’ and a club’s hierarchy – a figure who can blend technical with business understanding – isn’t such a ludicrous proposition. Naturally it’s horses for courses but, for some clubs, a system that balances power slightly upwards and away from the manager is perfect, as demonstrated by some of Europe’s most successful clubs for decades.

The key thing here, of course, is the balance. Even under such a system, the manager should be the most important person at the football club, given the freedom to develop and execute a vision for the team. A big part of that should be the hierarchy empowering him to deliver on that vision, providing a kind of ‘sense check’ from both a sporting and business perspective and constructing the parameters within which he should work.

And this is where it’s going wrong at Chelsea: that balance hasn’t been correctly struck. That Ancelotti can’t select his right-hand man or, as we are led to believe, isn’t consulted on who that person should be, is just one piece of evidence that suggests the freedom to build on his vision is constricting.

So the system isn’t necessarily a bad one – it can work and we shouldn’t attack it purely out of some old-fashioned notion of how things should be or, worse, how things were done. Chelsea’s problem seems to be that there are too many competing, self-interested visions for the club at its upper reaches that muddy the water. The balance needs to be redressed, and Ancelotti has a job on his hands.

The real reasons why Chelsea won't splash the cash in January

Following a rush of newspaper speculation in November, it all went very quiet on the Chelsea transfer gossip front.

Until Friday that was, when the Telegraph kick-started the Aguero gossip again with the suggestion that Chelsea have made a bid of £30m to Atletico for his services. The Daily Express joined the party yesterday, suggesting that the Argentine’s club had offered him to Chelsea for that figure under the proviso that he could stay with them on loan until the end of the season. The weekend has also seen rumours of a bid upwards of £30m for Wolfsburg striker Edin Dzeko.

But, despite a new round of gossip, I’m still unconvinced Chelsea will be making any major moves this month (I’m still convinced however that, if they can, they should - here's what my Chelsea transfer dealings might be). But what lies behind Chelsea’s reticence in the transfer market?

Shevchenko syndrome?

Big spending is no longer the Chelsea way. Having bought a number of players for figures over and above £20m – including Drogba, Essien and Wright-Phillips – Chelsea’s last major purchase was Shevchenko in the summer of 2006. Is the failure of the club’s record signing to make any form of impact at the club the reason behind Abramovich’s frugality?

Becoming financially stable

Three and a half years without a ‘major’ signing might indicate a Shevchenko syndrome (and sounds almost spoilt - oops). But it might go further than just feeling stung by Chelsea’s only real ‘marquee’ signing. There is a very real desire at Chelsea to become financially stable, as signified by ever-increasing reductions in annual loss figures and Abramovich’s writing-off of the club’s debt to him.

Spending figures - and indeed the amounts recovered through transfer fees - have only been going in one direction over the past three years:

 
As the table above (which shows money received/ spent from significant transfer dealings) shows, Chelsea transfer expenditure has been in almost continual decline since the summer of 2004. In contrast, the amount received from transfers has steadily increased in that period. In fact, during the 08/09 season, Chelsea actually made money through its dealings.

Whilst income and expenditure figures for transfer deals now appear to be converging, the real threat to Chelsea's stated aim to fund new purchases through player sales could well be the low transfer value of the club's current crop of ageing stars.

Will the ban stick?

Why appeal the FIFA transfer ban - off the back of the supposed wrongdoings over Kakuta's move from Lens - and request the decision be pushed back so the club is free to make transfers in the January window if there are no plans to actually do any deals?

Maybe it’s because Chelsea really don’t feel the deal will stick. We have heard nothing about the likely progression of the CAS verdict over the last month or so, but the last rumours suggested Chelsea may have been misinformed by the young Frenchman’s mother and that UEFA and the French/ English FA may have ratified the deal at the time. If any of this is true, Chelsea’s transfer ban could well be reduced or even rescinded altogether.

You can read my latest view on how Chelsea’s defence of their actions during Kakuta-gate might have grown here.

Focusing on young talent

As has regularly been stated by both Ancelotti and Chelsea’s senior management, the club is keen to see its young players start to make an impact at the club (presumably for both financial and footballing reasons). Given that Chelsea have invested at least £30m in young talent over the past few years however, it might not be as thrifty a solution as it first seems.

Changing the Chelsea name

Abramovich and Gourlay are tired of paying over the odds for players. Following the burst of wild spending between 2004 and 2006, the Chelsea name became synonymous with ‘money no object’ bids. Clubs saw them coming and took advantage.
As evidenced by the drawn-out attempt in the summer of 2008 to acquire Robinho, Chelsea no longer want to be held to ransom by clubs (or players) who look to make too much of the Stamford Bridge outfit’s wallet-size. Taking a deliberately harder line in negotiation is one part of a strategy to strengthen Chelsea’s position when dealing with other clubs.

I firmly believe deals do need to be done this January – although not necessarily for big name players. I’ve written about what deals I think Chelsea need to make here. Who knows what’s around the corner this month? But, even if a star name becomes available, don’t expect Chelsea to pay crazy money. Those days are behind us.

A life without Abramovich - are Chelsea considering the potential fallout?

A life without Roman? It doesn’t bear thinking about. Or does it? Well, evidently Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck thinks about it at least once a year. According to quotes attributed to him in today’s Sun, Buck has said:

“I think we'd be in a reasonably good state if Mr Abramovich left. However, we are comfortable — the directors of Chelsea Football Club are comfortable — that he is here for the long haul. Every year we're required to look at that. We're comfortable and we don't see it as an issue at all.”

Very interesting. I can see why they might feel comfortable. Whilst the club has consistently been making losses over the past few years, the figures have been steadily improving. Had it not been for the odd bad appointment or decision here and there (for example hiring Scolari or giving Grant a four year deal), the club probably would be edging towards the holy grail of self sufficiency by now. With the huge investment in the academy over the past five years, Buck is probably hoping Chelsea’s younger players will eventually reduce the need for significant investment in the squad in coming years.

On the other hand, it is also hard to avoid the conclusion that all the success of the last six years is down to Abramovich and that his departure would certainly have far-reaching consequences. Perhaps that’s why Buck chose the words he did: ‘comfortable’, not ‘well off’; ‘reasonably good’, not ‘very good’. Roman leaving is clearly vaguely plausible too – Buck and his team consider the potential impact each year. But we shouldn’t read too much into that, it’s standard business practice to do this kind of contingency planning and likely just a part of how the club reports to the owner on its financial growth.

That Buck is even answering these questions however could re-open the debate around Roman’s commitment to the club. This is a debate that won’t just fade away, mainly because of the Russian’s ongoing determination to keep a low public profile. But the signs are all positive: earlier in the year he halved the debt Chelsea owe him, a move the club hailed as a symbol of his commitment (although it is a move that does him no financial harm whatsoever, so I’d argue it’s a slightly shallow move); he regularly attends games; he personally intervened to both fire Scolari and hire Ancelotti. Hardly the actions of a disengaged Oligarch.

So no cause for concern…probably.

Roman hasn’t been spending freely of late – even before the recession burned a huge hole in his pocket – so maybe we shouldn’t worry about him leaving anyway? Then again, even if he isn’t investing millions maybe his wealth is an important safety blanket for the club. Chelsea fans – what do you think? I’m sure like me you wouldn’t want him to walk away…

You might also be interested to read:

• Chelsea should abandon its ‘off the shelf’ transfer policy