Recruitment structure review
Why do we keep signing players nobody wanted?
The question
In nine cases out of ten the scouting is not the problem. The problem is that three people each believe they have the final say, it has never been written down, and so the signing that gets made is the one nobody objected to loudly enough.
Who this is for
Clubs from semi-professional upwards that have changed manager twice in three seasons and kept the same squad.
How it runs
- Weeks 1–2Interviews, separatelyEveryone from the president to the part-time scout, on their own and off the record. The gap between what two people describe as the same process is the finding.
- Weeks 3–4The last twenty signingsWho proposed each one, who signed it off, what it cost and what it returned. Reconstructed from records and memory, because the records are always incomplete.
- Weeks 5–6The decision-rights mapWritten as it actually operates today, then as it should. This is the uncomfortable document and it is the whole engagement.
- Weeks 7–8The board sessionOne meeting, one document, and the disagreements had in the room rather than in the corridor afterwards.
Decision rights
Written as it actually operates, then as it should. Almost every recruitment problem I am called about turns out to live in the first column.
| Decision | As it operates today | As it should operate |
|---|---|---|
| Identify targets | Manager, informally, plus whoever an agent reached first | Recruitment department, against a written profile per position |
| Agree the budget | Never explicitly — discovered when an offer is refused | Board, once a season, in writing, with a window contingency |
| Approve a signing | President, in the last week of the window | Sporting director, within the agreed budget and profile |
| Veto a signing | Everybody believes they can. In practice, whoever speaks last | Board, on budget only. Not on football judgement |
| Set the wage ceiling | Case by case, which is how the 6.1× spread happened | Written banding by position and age, reviewed annually |
| Change the manager | President alone, usually within 48 hours of a defeat | Board, against criteria agreed at appointment, not at 3–0 down |
Method
Nobody is lying when they describe the process differently. They are describing the part of it they can see, and the fact that three descriptions do not reconcile is itself the finding.
What you receive
- The decision-rights map: now against proposed
- A review of the last twenty signings with cost and return
- A written role description for each person in the chain
- One board session, and three months of implementation
What this is not
This does not tell you which players to sign, and I will decline if that is what is wanted. It also cannot fix a structure where the owner intends to keep signing players personally — in that case the honest answer is that you do not have a recruitment problem, you have an owner, and no document changes that.