As I write this, the Euros are behind us, and the Paris Olympics are in full swing, marking another high point in a fantastic summer of sport. And while I may not be the world’s biggest sports fan, I could hardly have failed to miss the hype and hysteria attached to England’s recent footballing exploits. It seemed that everyone had an opinion, mainly surrounding the performance of manager Gareth Southgate, and, interestingly, he seemed to polarise opinions. Some said that the statistics didn’t lie and pointed to the fact that the England team had achieved more success under his stewardship than under any previous manager since 1966. Others argued that he should have been able to get more out of his team, given the sheer depth and breadth of talent at his disposal.

Whatever your view, the whole depth and breadth thing turned out to be one of the main England talking points, and I suspect it was one of Southgate’s biggest dilemmas. He had some of the best players in Europe in the squad, but some played in similar positions. Then he had other positions where he was relatively short of talent and had to shoehorn players into roles that weren’t a natural fit. Arguably, not enough breadth of talent, but plenty of depth, at least in some positions. Phil Foden and Jude Bellingham were a particular case in point. Both were at their best playing in the same position, and each could turn a game on its head through their brilliance. So, should Southgate play one or both? And if both played, which one should play out of their preferred position? Of course, it was a tricky bet to win. Unless he delivered an assured, victorious performance, everyone would argue that he’d got it wrong, whichever option he chose. Which is precisely what happened, even when the team won. The manner of
the victory was seemingly as important to some people as the victory itself, which, if you enjoy watching the beautiful game being played beautifully, is probably
fair enough.

This issue of depth and breadth reminded me of a challenge that crops up a lot in the world of property development, particularly for first-time developers. One of the biggest dangers to prospective property developers is their knowledge gap. Simply put, they don’t know what they don’t know, which can often prove terminal for their development aspirations. The danger comes not from a failure to admit that they don’t know stuff but from a (usually) false premise that their knowledge gap can be plugged by someone else with more experience than they have. The problem that then arises is a case of ‘in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king’. 

Let me explain. I once met a new developer (we’ll call him Dave) who had fallen into this very trap. Dave wasn’t daft by any measure and had fully recognised that he’d benefit from partnering with someone with more knowledge than he had when doing his first development project. He had sensibly opted to do a simple scheme, turning the upper floors of an empty shop into four one-bed flats. Nothing particularly complicated was involved; it was as vanilla as they came. He had permitted development rights to change the use of the building, which meant that he wouldn’t need to apply for full planning permission. He didn’t need to make any significant structural changes and had already assembled a team of professionals to do all the work. This included an architect, planning consultant, contractor, and project manager who would oversee things for him on site, plus a whole raft of other specialists.