I'm not sure of that, Nicolas!
It's a rule that one doesn't have poles coming out of heads, yes, and I can see the medical value of that, LOL. However, the vertical is very strong and can be used as a positive value for a more "manly picture". It makes the picture less gentle and relaxed. It creates an argument between him and the painted steel and also acts as a rigid stop to lock down the movement of the eye forward, i.e. to the right.
There's a famous photographer who purposely sought to break every rule and he loved to have poles coming directly behind the subject so it it's centered with the head. It's done to annoy those who make the rules, like as in the Dadaists "pissing off" the romantic artists. So having a noticeable feature that approaches the deformation of the rules and encroaches and even invades the sacred territory of the head, (which should be kept free), adds some the energy (of implied argument) to the picture.
Well, what I've said is nonsense if the agency does not like it! So I'd now consider providing a version without this powerful vertical fixture and let them choose. My guess is that this version would still be selected because, like the lengths of the tie not matching, this is "edgy".
This picture, would work even better with the periphery blurred a little more. I like the use of the ironwork in the composition construction. Perhaps a wider shot would even more impressive.
I must thank you Will for giving us an alternate subject to curvy beautiful women. That focus, although wonderful, often makes us ignore everything beyond beauty, pose and lighting. Now we can go further to deal with the photograph's construction elements and how they work together.
Asher