Rumour - Nick Hammond the new DOF at Crystal Palace?

[JamesWN]

This one has been doing the rounds for a couple of weeks. Palace Co-Owner currently looking for a new Director of Football. Apparently Steve Coppell is favorite with Nick Hammond second. Would drive him there if that's the case.

[Sutekh]

Southampton's DoF is also a hot favourite for the role.

[Mr.Swainey]

Would drive him there if that's the case.

Errr....... why?

[MoorgateRoyal]

If Hammond's job is to essentially negotiate the deals for incoming/outgoing players which have been identified by scouts and signed off by the manager, I think it's fair to say he's done a pretty good job.

We have made some crap signings, like every club, but I think his overall record is more good than bad.

[Nameless]

If Coppell and Hammond are both contenders Palace can't have much idea of what the job entails. Hammond did the bits of the job at Reading that Coppell wasn't interested in.

[blueroyals]

If Hammond's job is just to offer contracts and fax bids to clubs that's not a DoF. Perhaps 10 years ago when he first joined, but the role has evolved to involve a lot more and I don't think NH has evolved with that. Football clubs have evolved into businesses, with long term strategy and planning and a long term goal. It's not just a case of appoint a manager and buy him some players.

Modern DoF are responsible for overseeing the entire footballing operation. Responsible for finding a manager who can implement a style of play, manager succession strategy, player recruitment strategy. Working with the owners/directors to create an x year plan and implementing the football aspects of that plan. There is no plan at this club, it's 1 season at a time with no foresight.

Yes, he's good at wheeling and dealing but the failures of the last 5/6 years can be put down to a lack of long term footballing strategy. I wouldn't be sad to see him go (and replaced by somebody better).

[Ian Royal]

DoFs are what you wish them to be and give them as s job description. It's not a formally defined job role in a wider context.

If we want a DoF to negotiate contracts, manage the value of transfer bids - buying and selling - based on the Manager's selections and preferences then that's what the role is.
If we want a DoF to liaise with scouts and identify and choose to sign players for the manager / chief coach to use in the team then that's what the role is.
If we just want someone to brew the tea we can call them the DoF if that's what we want to do.

It doesn't have to be the same at every club. The role we've got has been pretty successful here. Not perfect by any means, but that's largely to do with other factors like budgetry constraints and poor scouting assessment of PL quality transfers.

[ayjaydee]

Any DoF who can get a combined £7.5m for an injury ridden centre back and a forward who had fallen out of love with the game is fine by me.

[Pepe the Horseman]

And don't forget he masterminded the Glenn Murray deal.

[AthleticoSpizz]

yip, jumping on the OP scolding bandwagon from the nobber elite

Hasn't NH has been doing this job for over ten years now......it's been a piss poor ten years in the clubs overall history hasn't it?

[RoyalBlue]

Any DoF who can get a combined £7.5m for an injury ridden centre back and a forward who had fallen out of love with the game is fine by me.

Surely works both ways or didn't he have any involvement in negotiating some of the extremely expensive (at least in terms of wages) deals for poor/under performers that we brought in?

[Ian Royal]

Any DoF who can get a combined £7.5m for an injury ridden centre back and a forward who had fallen out of love with the game is fine by me.

Surely works both ways or didn't he have any involvement in negotiating some of the extremely expensive (at least in terms of wages) deals for poor/under performers that we brought in?

Certainly does. Although remember he works to the budget he's given. If he's given a ludicrous budget based on phantom money, that's not his fault. And the really big offenders are pretty obvious owner interference cases, you know Pog and Drenthe.

And he's also reliant on the information on people's worth - provided by the scouts and their importance to bring in - provided by the manager.

Given Hammond has been a constant for over 10 years, whilst a lot has changed around him. I think we can be fairly certain that the cause of the problems we've had hasn't been him.

[AthleticoSpizz]

once again

You say it so much better

longer winded....but better

[Hoop Blah]

Any DoF who can get a combined £7.5m for an injury ridden centre back and a forward who had fallen out of love with the game is fine by me.

Surely works both ways or didn't he have any involvement in negotiating some of the extremely expensive (at least in terms of wages) deals for poor/under performers that we brought in?

That all depends who you mean? The ones under Zingarvich appear to be down to him and he was the one throwing the money around. If he promises Pogrebnyak £x a week then Hammond isn't going to be able to back track on that or insert some get out clauses to protect the club.

In a similar vein, the likes of Halford or Fae not working out isn't down to the man who made financials of the deal work it's down to the men that selected them and subsequently managed them.

People also seem to blame Hammond for the lack of spending when he isn't the one holding the purse strings or investing the funds.

I'm pretty confident that Hammond is very capable at what he does for the club. He won't be infallible, just like the rest of us, but I've no doubt we're lucky to have him and that he's contributed significantly to our success during the time he's been with us.

[Ian Royal]

once again

You say it so much better

longer winded....but better

I've accidentally learnt to touch type, so it's not actually that much effort to be a bit verbose. And I'm fascinated by analysis. Got to keep my brain active some how. I'm safeguarding the young's education now.

[poohs pure]

Unfair to single out Hammond for individual criticism when the entire staff at RFC, from the oxf*rd that serve the food through to the upper echelons couldn't piss on their own feet without help.

[PieEater]

I really hope he doesn't go, that would sound some alarm bells for me as Clarke would be pushing him out.

I think his role has been pretty successful here in that he doesn't meddle with the team and just takes a lot of the dross off the manager's plate, acting as a finance/contract middleman between the manager and the board.

Any decent manager should see that as a good set up, there are many clubs were it doesn't work this way and the managers hate it.

[Coppelled_Streets]

Hammond is another big wage that we should let go, and he's hardly earned it this last few years. He should take some of the blame for these overinflated contracts he's handed out to bang everage players!

[Forbury Lion]

A DoF has to manage the footballing purse strings and would already have a list of future managerial targets. He should also be the one to liaise between the board and the manager as someone with football knowledge and experience with the board he can push for more funding for the manager or question transfer decisions - such as a manager wanting to sign 10 goalkeepers.

I think it's fair to say that under Anton the DoF role was pushed aside for your non-typical Reading signings - Drenthe, Pog (who was signed by Anton and then subsequently introduced to Brian McDermot who had no idea who he was), so let's not blame Hammond for that.

The true worth of Nicky Hammond won't be recognised until he has gone...... although that may also depend on whether his replacement is better or worse.

[loyalroyaldaz]

In for Jack Warner